Like Frankenstein these criminals have often nothing to live for and hold huge rage toward society and those who are more fortunate. Consider David Chapman.

USA tries to solve the crime problem by applying the most severe punishments to all those convicted. Scandinavia and Canada have solved the problem much more efficiently by providing EVERYONE with reasonable sustenance — like 1/3 of GNP per capita. That means that even someone who does not have the ability to find a job can still have reasonable lifestyle and does not need to commit any crimes.

Denise perpetuates the myth that women consider sex to be a burden due to fears of pregnancy but the reality is that women want commitment from men because they recognize, rightly so, that raising children is expensive and they value the judgement of other women and don’t want to be seen as sexually loose.

Sadly, Dierdre, Denise is right that women do hold “sexual” power and can deny men sex for entirely arbitrary reasons much like the “soup nazi” character in Seinfeld. Women can and do parlay sexual attention into profit but only because women don’t derive the same level of satisfaction that men do from it. That is the puritannical underside of the coin that feminists don’t like admitting: That men generally enjoy greater sexual pleasure than women. That even if he’s F’ed over in a divorce, or pays $1000 for a prostitute, etc. he’ll still probably feel better about himself at the end of the day than the woman. (This also explains why American women, who may appear more empowered, are usually totally friggin’ nuts.)

Thanks Paul, you answered the point perfectly. Again, Denise Noe is using a typical feminist line of reasoning; that women hold all sexual power and men either supplicate for access or take sexual pleasure violently. She was generalizing broadly from the case of a very disturbed sex criminal.

Dierdre was responding to Denise Noe’s point that men are weaker because they are always the aggressor and must be “on” sexually to perform.

Of course, if you still want to talk about women manually pleasuring themselves, go right ahead…

“Men do not envy women because we can have sex regardless of arousal. Just because we have organs that do not require erection for activity doesn’t mean that is all there is to it. It also doesn’t reflect on pathology or sanity.”

Actually, Dierdre, you might want to look at your engorged clitoris the next time you are having intercourse “without erection.”

This from the best feminist book I’ve ever come across – “THE CLITORAL TRUTH: The Secret World at Your Fingertips.” (Rebecca Chalker).

—

(Excerpted quotes)-

“In both the clitoris and the penis, there are two types of erectile tissue: body of caverns (corpus caversosum) and spongy body (corpus spongiosum), which fill with blood during sexual response, causing an erection.

The clitoral shaft is attached to the glans, just underneath the surface of the skin. The shaft is a round fibrous segment of spongy erectile tissue, and like the glans, it is very sensitive.

If you roll your finger back and forth just above the glans during sexual response, you should be able to feel a hard ridge about one-half to one ince long, and about the diameter of a soda straw, and rises toward the pubic mound for a short distance, then dends sharply and divides, forming two slender legs or cura (Latin for “legs”), which are also composed of spongy tissue. The legs of the clitoris flare out somewhat like the wishbone of a chicken.

… underneath the inner lips are twin bulbs of cavernous erectile tissue. During sexual response these structures fill with blood, which then becomes trapped in their cryptic spaces, casuing erection.

In both women and men, the urethra (the tube through which we urinate) is surrounded by a ring of spongy erectile tissue that is identical to the type of erectile tissue that surrounds the penis.

So, we now know … women have a complex and powerful genital system that is designed for one specific purpose – pleasure.”

—

Proving that the clinical is always political!

And please, no more misinformation about women not getting blue balls …

I don’t see much of that, but yes the reverse is ubiquitous, such as this XYY nonsense, the whole Maureen Dowd / Dr Phil mindset, in advertising, and in government. The difference is that for male-bashing, there is no PC Thought Police trying to prevent women from bashing all men, its actually encouraged, while even MND is not immune from the PC faithful keeping watch for the sake of women.

There are decent women in America, but they are getting fewer because of a female entitlement culture, where women are always victims, men are always guilty, children don’t matter, and the solution is always for the male to give money to the female and for men to go to prison, while we look for excuses and for a man to blame for female deviants.

Women aren’t any better than men, and men aren’t any better than women. If we had a culture of male entitlement, the reverse of what we have now, there would be a lot of men taking advantage of it, but there would also be a lot of decent men who are better than the culture just as there remains better women now. If that was the case, women would have to be very concerned that a decent man who doesn’t take advantage of it could always turn on her and go to a courtroom or a receptive media and cash in on his superior rights. Some women would blame that on men, but the problem would not be the nature of men, it would be the culture itself.

Its my view that our culture, a feminist one, is exposing the dark side of women, such as just how vindictive, selfish, lying, and deceiful women can be when they know they can get away with it. We see this constant barrage of male-bashing in advertising, and its success reveals a lot about the nature of women, including that it is no better or worse than that of men. Then we have false accusations of rape and abuse, paternity fraud, parental alienation, and a whole lot more going on right now. Give somebody authority with no responsibility and subdue all dissent if you want to see their unrestricted nature.

So, some men may blame the nature of women, just as women are constantly yearning to blame the nature of men. I view it more as a cultural problem, instigated by feminism, and implemented primarily through the courts and PC media.

As to the feminization of Richard Speck, that’s another symptom of a deranged man living in a deranged culture sent to live in a government operated gay dungeon. I’m sure there are butch lesbians in female prisons who were formerly extremely passive heterosexuals, but we don’t see articles using them to stereotype the true nature of women. And yes, there are probably fewer such women than such men, but that is because we don’t like holding females responsible for their actions nor do we punish them in the same way or as often as we do men.

Probably because he married a real woman, as did I. There are so many men who post on this site that have had awful experiences with women, and then extrapolate that to the entire population. Well they need to keep looking, no matter how long it takes. Women like you are out there, and if they only look towards nuts like Denise Noe, they won’t find them. I’m convinced there are more Ann Coulters out there than there are Maureen Dowds, they’re just harder to find amid all the screaming.

So, the romance of the Hyper-Genetic-Male is only fiction.

This is NOT an article about a deranged rapist who became a homosexual in prison. It is about Denise Noe and her hatred of men. Men do not envy women because we can have sex regardless of arousal. Just because we have organs that do not require erection for activity doesn’t mean that is all there is to it. It also doesn’t reflect on pathology or sanity.

Denise Noe is a radical feminist and unfit to read. Does anyone think men are the “gender of poverty and want” ?? The man I’m married to doesn’t reflect poverty or want. What is Denise’s point?

Sounds like Denise is a hardcore feminist having fun with Mens News Daily.

“Richard Speck and most male sex criminals are clearly representative of all men. Women are wealth and plenty, love and compassion. Men are poverty, want and impotency. The male sex drive is an impulse that springs from men’s rage at not having any sexual opportunity.”

Denise cautions her remarks by saying “a small minority of men” but then generalizes in the same sentence which effectively negates her caution.

In reality – and especially in the modern sexual/dating scene, women approach men as often as men approach women. Women give sex freely and easily, there is no scarcity. If ANY man is in want, the slightest effort will bring sexual satisfaction from modern women.

Attempting to make a sex criminal an American “everyman” is obscene. Denise should be ashamed. I could pen a column painting every woman as Andrea Yates, securing and celebrating the ultimate power of femininity through the murder of her own children. “Andrea proved her superiority over her husbands sex drive with every second her babies struggled for breath as she held them under water. Andrea’s husband was ultimately poor of children and impotent of control, thus proving Denise Noe’s theory of male/female relations.”

Has it come to this? Is Denise Noe the best MND can come up with? Why not replace her with Maureen Dowd? At least Dowd is funny because she is always wrong. Denise Noe is simply dishonest.

Now, if you happen to be the “only” woman available to a trapped, bored and otherwise disengaged group of men, then, yes, your argument makes sense.

But in the ordinary marketplace of human exchange, variables like age, education, physical health and economic prospects (not to mention an affinity for sex and its outcomes,) flit in a whirlwind of unlikely encounters. But the game of chance is rigged – because any man or woman who occupies the favored position for each of these traits is likely to get what they want in way of sex, offspring, prospects… all with the proverbial wind at their backs. (That’s another way of saying, “some people have more options than others.”)

Mike