The politician, known as "unfeasibly stupid head" in some circles, is
at her mad manhating agenda again.

She's still pushing forward her plans to jail men who want sex.

That's really clever of her, isn't it? Punish men who women don't
already fancy enough to sleep with for the fun of it.

That's going to make these men treat women well in the future isn't it?


Harriet Harmanhater kindly points out here
(http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=196492005) that...

"Ms Harman admitted that rapes were less likely to result in
convictions than other serious crimes and said today's conference was
a vital chance to tackle the problem.

She said: "Although the number of rapes <> reported to
the police has increased dramatically over the years, it is clear that
very many rape victims <> still don't
go to the police or, if they do, find themselves unable to go through
with the court proceedings in which they will usually be the most
important witness.

"Rape is still less likely to be reported, less likely to result in a
charge, and less likely to be prosecuted than other serious crimes.
That's why our discussions today are so important.

Sex in marriage isn't rape Harriet. Sex after accepting a meal isn't
rape Harriet. You can brainwash women into thinking that it is, but it
just isn't. If you really cared for women, you'd teach them what men
are, but you don't. Instead to teach them that men's aspirations are
second to the dogs's.

As far as I'm concerned, you are such a filthy scumbucket.

Sex is physiological for men. You can't punish a lung for seeking out
air.

For every man that was lucky to a neighbouring country to the woman, at
the time she said he'd raped her, there are tens of thousands of men
who were just in a neighbouring postcode.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 8:57:06 AM ---