I am appalled at the liberal #ME TOO movement. It is with great pleasure that I announce the formation of the #WHO ME? movement as a counter weight to hypocritical liberals. Our specific goal is to point out the following:
My fraternity (“HUBBA HUBBA U”) is a fine example of Southern hospitality: we only invited females of the sporting variety. There is some blame to be shared by any females that allow themselves to be behind closed doors with randy beer crazed underclassmen.A little restraint amongst Southern Belles couldn’t hurt…as long as the ropes are not too tight. But I digress. The Golden Rule of the #WHO ME? lads is : Watch your step,honey…we certainly are(watching your step,don’t you know) and we cannot be expected to always have honorable intentions.
The Midterms are coming! A vote for FOGHORN is a vote for THE SPORTING LIFE!


Although I understand the satire here, there is some genuine legitimacy in the me-too movement. There just needs to be more care (and a lot less bias) in its application.


My experience as a criminal investigator makes me somewhat skeptical of unsupported claims of sexual assault. As I’ve said before, fully HALF of all the complaints I investigated turned out to be bogus. The other half were, by in large, over-stated. Rather than being “rapes”, they were groping (mostly while drunk…BOTH parties) or other, similar acts, that while technically “assaults” fell short of the legal definition of a rape. There were a few actual rapes, of course. I recall one guy (an Army lieutenant) who would seek out wives of other military people living alone or with small children and sneak in at night and rape the women–often gaining their cooperation by threatening to kill their children. Before the penal code changed in 1973, it was an affirmative defense to a charge of rape if the victim cooperated in any fashion and he kept getting off. Finally, he broke into a woman’s house and she beat him half to death with a cast-iron skillet. We convicted him of BURGLARY because the definition at that time of burglary was the breaking and entering of a domicile with intent to commit theft OR ANY OTHER FELONY.


We vote a warm thank you to Brother Moderator for understanding satire, as applied in political theory. If only dear Sam Clemens or Walt Kelly were alive in this season of madcap mayhem… “sigh” What might have been.
But I do wish to remind sweet young things that REGARDLESS of age, red blooded males above the age of, say, SIX YEARS OLD are not to be trusted in movie balconies, the woods,or the back seat of a 1967 yellow Ford Mustang (be still,my heart!)
Which brings us to the Second Amendment: If liberals are so dadblamed interested in morals, let them ARM their daughters with a large enough caliber to let Billy Bob know what “no” means. That should bring a real Wild West flavor to LOVERS LANE!!


This I’ll definitely go along with.

But I also believe that even with provacative styles, a man has a responsibility to be- well, responsible. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and while lustful thoughts come all too easily, I firmly believe that it’s more than possible not to cross the rubicon into unwelcome action.

As a side note, I’ll say that the whole situation with modern society’s sexual orthodoxy is a 24-karat mess, with women being encouraged by society to wear such styles (often, women aren’t aware (often aren’t made aware) of how much it affects men to see delectable female flesh), men who are encouraged to get a piece whenever and wherever they can, the result is a train wreck, and everyone wants something or someone to blame except for sexual autonomy.

By the way, that’s Molluskator… Magna-mini


Fairly recently in our history, women were deemed “marriageable” shortly after the onset of menstruation, meaning around 13 or 14 (in those times). In the mid-20th Century, we somehow got the idea that our kids should BE children for as long as we can manage to MAKE them behave as children, and it became “fashionable” to delay marriage for our girls until 19 or 20 at a minimum. Along with delaying marriage, came the concept that these children should abstain from sex…at a time in their lives when raging hormones DEMAND that they engage in sex. Maybe the “solution” to this issue is to ALLOW children to marry when THEY believe they are ready for sex, but FIRST teach them that along with permissiveness comes responsibility and they need to be prepared to devote at least 18 years to supporting the inevitable offspring of that permissiveness…or at least until that offspring decides that he/she is ready for sex, too.