vs Stalkers

"So, Sexy-D, let's hear you take on this Stalker crap..."
Mass media originally treated stalking as a celebrity problem: famous people being continuously harrassed and shadowed by fanatics until someone gets shot or splattered with bloody semen.  However, modern society soon realised that the most common form of this crime involves everyday jilted lovers or gormless rejectees unable to resolve the fact that the relationship they desire is no longer a realistic option.  It is typically motivated by one or two particularly irrational emotions:

1. envy: wanting what someone else has,

or

2. jealousy: not wanting to lose something that you had.

See, even when you try to lighten the issue with hilarious shirt slogans

people still feel uneasy.

I'm as prone to experiencing those two emotional states as much as the next guy, but I'm just too damn lazy to act on it.  Seriously, stalking seems like an awfully exhausting, risky and embarrassing way to not gain someone else's affection.  Stalking, by nature, is unwanted, intrusive behaviour.  If someone doesn't want you to pay them attention, then how is paying them more attention going to change their mind?

It won't, obviously, which is why stalkers are forced to justify their actions by constructing a denialist fantasy: there's a movie playing in their head all the time in which they are the unsung hero venturing forth on a romantic [aka 'twisted as all fuck'] quest.  Obsessing about your own life is bad enough, but the retardation of personal character required to obssess about someone else's life is simply mind-staggering to the rest of us.  If you think you can somehow control another person's life by sticking your nose into every part of it then you have failed to grasp even the fundamental principles of how humans work.

"Stalking is a Crime?  Back in the 80's we called that dating!" 
Hahahaha!  It's funny because being a needy, scary douche was a social norm then, apparently.  But times have changed and with it the Law.  Well, the laws in my country anyway. 

Here under Federal Law (as per the Criminal Code Stalking Amendment Act, 1999) the legislation describes and defines 'Unlawful Stalking' as conduct that:

a. intentionally directed at a person (the "stalked person"); and


b. engaged in on any 1 occasion if the conduct is protracted or on more than 1 occasion; and


c. consisting of 1 or more acts of the following, or a similar, type-


     i. following, loitering near, watching or  approaching a person;

    ii. contacting a person in any way, including, for example, by telephone, mail, fax, e-mail or through the use of any technology;


   iii. loitering near, watching, approaching or entering a place where a person lives, works or visits;


    iv. leaving offensive material where it will be found by, given to or brought to the attention of, a person;


     v. giving offensive material to a person, directly or indirectly;


    vi. an intimidating, harassing or threatening act against a person, whether or not involving violence or threat of violence;


   vii. an act of violence, or a threat of violence, against, or against property of, anyone, including the
defendant; and


d. that-


     i. would cause the stalked person apprehension or fear, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, of
violence to, or against property of, the stalked person or another person; or


    ii. causes detriment*, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, to the stalked person or another person.

*'detriment' in this case means any actually loss or harm to a person or property.

Like all legalese, this was written in the style of 'confused yet arrogant robot', because courts love that shit.  But what it actually means is that if you are shown to intentionally and persistently bug the fuck out of another human in a way that makes them feel scared, then you may qualify as a stalker.  That's a pretty broad-sweeping definition, but bear in mind that stalkers come in different flavours and operating systems.  Here's a simple breakdown on the various sub-species:

1. Non-domestic stalker: (aka 'Fanzilla') who has no personal relationship with the victim.  This is the classic stereotype that was originally associated with the stalker: a fan obsessed with a ceratin celebrity/public figure/possible cartoon character.  They'd collect anything associated with their idol, convert their room into a shrine, track every piece of gossip, you know the deal.  Then one day the Fanzilla decides the only way they'll truly prove their devotion to [insert famous name] is to buy an illegal firearm, punch the address of the star's preferred day spa into the GPs, and then make the news in a major way.

2. Organized Stalker(s): (aka  'Dedicated Bully') base their actions on calculated, controlled aggression, often as part of a vendetta, ostracisation process or similar fear campaign against a peer.  This variety is often related to 'pack stalking'.  It's not based on a dualistic love/hate motivation, but is a skillfully planned and executed bullying plan designed to exclude the target from whatever workplace/sports club/social group to which they belong.

3. Delusional Stalker: (aka 'Really Fucking Insane, Seriously') is based in a fixation like erotomania or obsessive love, may be psychotic in nature or at least emotionally dysfunctional.  This is serious mental health shit, peppered with scary shrink words like 'attachment disorder', 'Oedipal complex', 'manic depression' and 'compulsive masturbation'.

4. Domestic Stalker: (aka 'Typical Psycho Ex') who either has had a prior relationship with the victim and feels motivated to continue or intensify the relationship, or who otherwise feels entitled to said relationship.  Psycho Ex is a vernacular term, as most domestic stalkers are not clinically psychotic.  They are just really shithouse at not being a fixated fuckwit.
 

Thankfully, Type 5 stalkers ('The Socially Inept and Obese') were hunted to extinction

back in the '90s.

"Great, multiple types of creep, but which is the most dangerous, SD?"
Statistically speaking it's Stalker Type 4 (Domestic).  That's because this kind of scenario - where an ex can't let go - accounts for more cases that the rest put together.  It also sadly tends to feature a higher potential or escalation in violence on the part of the stalker if not dealt with effectively.  We hear about, see or sometimes even experience cases like that from time to time.  And although there are established laws in place to deter stalky types, the associated enforcement and judicial systems can't guarantee an effective hit rate when it comes to preventing some pretty horrible outcomes.  That's the drawback of broad-sweeping laws - too many cracks and loopholes.

Most of your stalkers - the majority Type 4s who are just violently obsessive instead of clinically insane - will fixate on you (a stalkee) because they want power over you. They want to make you adore and submit to them. This is due to their narcissistic entitlement obsession.

"The Narky-what-session?"
Sigh - just read on...

Look, there's two types of people who participate in romantic relationships:

1. Those who think they are somehow magically entitled to that relationship (folks I tend to call 'Disney Cartoons'),

and;

2. Those who know that the relationship demands all manner of hard work and even then there's no guarantee (aka 'Grown Ups').

Domestic stalkers are enhanced versions of the Disney Cartoon category. Think of them as Disney Cartoons with the lot, plus a side serve of night-vision goggles. They are so ignorant that they continue to believe in their enititlement even after the other person has pulled the plug and walked away.  You know, as opposed to counselling, sobbing into a pint glass, writing dark love poems, or just fucking someone like a normal person. Instead, obsessive, highly manipulative and often intimidating behavioural patterns ensue. And, because the nature of the original relationship was always fundamentally emotional (vs purely physical or intellectual), rational arguments will not dissuade a Disney Cartoon type of stalker because he/she is a compulsive, spoilt little cunt*.
*For a given value of 'cunt'. 

Jealousy-powered stalking does not occur within an exclusive demographic - the rich, poor, intelligent or plain dumb are all equally represented in this creepy profile. Stalkering is an equal opportunity vocation, oblivious to race, class, creed, gender or education.

Stalky = Jealousy + Creepy, and it's univeral, just like dandruff.

Stalkers are driven by a deep, self-generated, self-feeding emotional need for control and are unlikely to respond to negotiation due to the addictive nature of their fixation.  And if anything, the more intelligent a stalker the worse they act. IQ doesn't make them socially smarter, it just means they come up with more sophisticated justifications for being a douche.  They lack insight into their own behaviour and simply do not see their actions as stalky in any true sense.  However, most are aware that the outside world might 'naively misconstrue' their activity as being a little weird, which is why they go to great lengths to stalk covertly.  Oh, and chances are they're also developing a nasty dose of paranoia in the process, just to make them even less stable.

If you are targeted, the trick is to avoid becoming as fucked up as them, because do you know what else causes unhealthy degrees of paranoia? Yep, being the target of a stalker.

"Fuck that shit, SD, what's the solution?" 
Hang tight, people, because I want to show you the standard advice first.  According to this official-yet-shitty-looking web page you have no less than 37 options to protect against being stalked.  Most of them come across as sensible enough to a panicky person, but to me they seem a bit impractical and extremely *yawn* boring. 
 
I mean, come on, look at No. 3: "Remove landscaping behind which someone can hide or keep surveillance." That just sounds like a lot of hard gardening work to me. 
 
And then there's No. 33: "Don't give out your Internet password and change it regularly.".  I don't know what an 'Internet password' is, you insanely uninformed information site, so I'm just going to assume you mean any and all forms of identity-reliant online memberships.
 
Then there's my favourite, No. 30: "If you don't want to or know how to use a gun, assess your living space for possible defensive weapons and have them ready."

I love that last piece of advice, partly because it's prefixed with the counter-productive disclaimer "(USA ONLY ALLOWS OWNERSHIP OF GUNS)", but mainly because the two weaponry choices on offer are either firearms (a rather ultimate solution), or whatever you happen to find in your living room:

This means that - if I was the kind of ill-prepared pussy didn't already own a 9mm semi-automatic - I have to end up considering the following combat options:

The plasma TV?  Hell no, Sea Patrol is on tomorrow. 
Coffee table?  Where will I stack my magazines and take-out boxes then? 
Remote control?  Jeezus, I might as well cut my hands off. 
The Nintendo Wii?  Fuck yeah, gay little piece of shit keeps telling me I'm fat.  If I'm so fat, you stoopid game, then how come someone's stalking me, huh?

Your personal armoury.

Read through that linked list carefully and you'll notice one common theme in some of that paranoia-inducing garbage.  It's one that's been recited to kids by softcock parents the world over.  "Just ignore bullies [stalkers] and they'll get bored and leave you alone."
 
No.  Fucking.  Way.
 
Now maybe - under supremely sane circumstances - a supremely sane person hitherto seeking your attention may finally give up if you ignore them a few times.  Maybe.  But Stalker Type 4 doesn't like to be ignored.  He/she actually gets very shitty when he/she is being ignored.  Instead of giving up on the object of their denialist-desire, they will push harder and harder to provoke an attentive response. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I think deliberately ignoring these fucktards is a great idea, but only because it will infuriate the crap out of them, not deter them.  And infuriating people I don't like is hella cool.  But, in place of a protracted list of what effectively reads like a an urban camping list, I would like to offer a philosophical alternative to barricading your doors and digging a crocodile moat around your house.  It's all about your mindset and how you see yourself if targeted by a stalker.
 
"Sounds like psycho-babble, but keep talking..."
In terms both legal and psychological, stalking is considered a form of predation.  Hence the target of a stalker is easily pigeon-holed as 'the prey' or 'the victim'.

Remember the defining part of the crime as pertaining to the stalkee?

"[actions] that would cause the stalked person apprehension or fear... or detriment". 

But once you create or accept the label of 'victim' or 'prey', you choose to disempower yourself and transfer all that power to third party agencies - cops, judges, and (in worse case scenarios) the paramedics.  That may sound adult-like and responsible, but the process really isn't too effective.  Even cops will tell you that off the record. 

Choosing to call yourself a "victim of stalking" equals lame, is what I'm saying.

Remember, you should never brand yourself a victim until they find your body.

Sounds harsh?  So what?  Let's get make it clear here: some fucking retard with a spoilt brat mentality and the emotional maturity of raped kitten is messing with your private life, right?  He/she is keeping tabs on your whereabouts, shadowing you, calling/texting you at weird hours, and trying to sabotage any new relationships you may want to pursue.  He/she will become a constant presence in your world even when they're not around.  Their very existence will haunt you.

And all because you didn't want to be in a relationship with their batshit-crazy ass.

"Yeah, so if we don't want to be the victim, what's the alternative, smart ass?"
Now, you can call this type of predator a 'stalker', 'creep', 'obsessive', 'inappropriate' or whatever.  But I'm telling you right now, anyone who intentionally and repeatedly tries messing in my private life only ever earns one title:

"FOE" 

That's because I don't consider stalking to be a 'nuisance', 'concern', 'behavioural issue' or 'victimisation pattern'. 

No.

As far as I'm concerned it's a fucking Act of War.

It's a fight, a conflict, a counter-insurgency, a critical tactical competition inherent in any hostile, uncontrolled, adversarial process.

It is my desire to be left the fuck alone vs their desire for my attention.  Well, if that's the case, they're about to get attention in spades.

Let me put it this way: imagine certain aspects of your life as a sovereign nation.  Let's call it My Kingdom of Huge Boobies Privacy Land, just for the sake of discussion.  The forces of the Stalker Empire have just crossed your borders and initiated hostile actions against your territory.  Do you:

1. Petition the UN to initiate discussions on support and perhaps embargoes or sanctions against the Stalky incursion? (ie: take the legal system path).

OR

2. Scream and wail to the international media about the horrible atrocities being inflicted against your peaceful country? (post your situation on Twitter/Facebook/forums or the like).

OR

3. Break out the guns, form resistance units and fight for Privacy Land by kicking those invaders the fuck out?  (ie: prep for action).

Fuck you, Stalker Empire, and your dreaded Stalkenpanzers!

The answer, of course is ALL THREE, because when you're defending your privacy, safety and welfare, you should never hold back.

Option 1. Sure, get the restraining order/police reporting process underway asap.  It'll take time and may not yield much for you at first, but at least you can say you told them about the stalker from the start.  Think of this process as your official Record of War.

Option 2. Social networking is a great way to launch a counter-offensive.  Don't play distressed victim - pity gets old fast - but instead spread the truth.  And if you're worried about defamation* then just work around the legal definition.  The first thing you make clear over the public network is that you just filed a police report/restraining order.  You don't have to state who it's against in a public forum, but I'm sure pretty much anyone who knows you will ask you in private.  This part of fighting back is your official Declaration of War.
*Defamation is a statement of described or implied fact that may harm or negatively affect the subject of said statement.  However, this does not apply to statements that are shown to be legally true. 

Option 3. As for your physical/lifestyle defences and counter-attacks, there are so many lovely alternatives.  Some folks will tell you to learn self-defence, buy a big dog, change every lock/account/phone number you have, or even move house.  Fuck all that shit - too much time and hassle involved.  What you need when repelling any invasion force is an army.  The greatest weakness of stalkers is that they tend to operate solo, and hence treat you like an isolated individual too.  However, your greatest strength is that you are a healthily-minded human being, and hence you tend to congregate and operate in groups.  The others in your groups are, in this war, your Allies.  Family, friends, workmates and any other persons with whom you are regularly associated on the basis of mutual benefit, gain or enjoyment.  These folks need to be accurately briefed on your situation because these people will then form your defensive picket (just by being aware and watching out for Stalky).  This is your Mobilisation for War stage. 

Bonded human groups, it's what we, as a species, do and

what stalkers, as idiots, tend to forget.

Once you've mobilised the rest tends to take care of itself.  Depending on how reliable and protective your allies are, your stalker will soon be a readily containable threat instead of some kind of super-villain.  Yes, it does take much in the way of preparation, research, advice and motivation to go to war against this type of freak.  It is not fun, nor easy, nor stress-free.  But anything short of covering your bases, prepping your defences and spread the hard, ugly word is, in the stalker's eyes, inferred consent to continue interfering in your life.

  

vs Hateworthy Things x7

Due to no demand whatsoever, here's another seven things I'd rather hate than resolve...

Royal Weddings
It's twenty-fucking-eleven!  I should be sitting in a rocket chair watching clones fight for food on the Moon!  Why the hell is there even a royalty anymore?  I'll tell you why, because watching Royals do things is like seeing time travellers pop up now and again to remind us how far we've come since serfdom. 

Wikileaks
I know you're trying to make government shennanigans transparent and more accountable, but what you're really doing is spamming us with things we really don't want to know, okay?  There are so many cables and excerpts flying around now that I'm starting to miss the old cover-ups. 

Soft Stalkers
Thanks to the cyber-age of information, stalking has never been lazier.  Back in the old days it took serious, obsessive narcissism to get out and physically follow the object of your twisted desire.  If the cops didn't get you the new boyfriend's attack dogs would.  Nowadays people just patch together a few fake online profiles and fish for whatever info they can glean on the whereabouts and activities of exes.  Then they start the hate-campaigns, constructing elaborate propoganda vehicles on Facebook, Twitter, SMS spamming and whatever else the kids are using to lie to the universe these days.  If you're going to act out like a sad, sulky child, for Christ's sake have the gumption to do it in person so the authorities can field test their new tazers.

Soft Revenge
It's like vengeance lost its balls and revenge fantasies were rewritten by Disney.  Nobody wreaks revenge by bettering their own life, they do it by destroying someone else's.  Revenge is what you do when you DON'T want to get over something, that's the whole fucking point.  It's the opposite of moral maturity, the high road and natural justice.  Leave it up to karma?  Good luck waiting for your nemesis to die off and return as a caterpillar, hippie.  Look, I'm not advocating petty vindication, I'm just saying that you have the options to either evolve with dignity or avenge your situation by sneaking over to that fucker's place and spray-painting the word 'RACIST' on their car bonnet.  One option may eventually make you feel satisfied with life, while the other will definitely be hilarious.

Internet Porn
You say there's too much?  I say not enough, at least not enough interesting stuff out in Adult Entertainment Land.  All the permutations have been thrashed to death, every possible carnal configuration between consenting adults explored.  It's getting to the stage where real life sex is becoming a preferable again.

3D Movies
Not worth the extra $5 if it's still a crappy movie, alright?  Any film that has to rely on tricking my brain into thinking its pointing things at me in order to sell tickets is probably not going to end up in my masterpiece collection.

Wars
A lot of these armed conflicts aren't about good guys fighting bad guys, they're about one sort of bad guy fighting another sort of bad guy, neither of whom care about you, okay?  The media only presents it as a 'Light vs Darkness' scenario because tallying up the true atrocities accrued by both sides would take too long and would make you finally realise that all the guns belong to crazy assholes.

vs Beiberisms, Beliebers, Beiberology, Beiber Fever, and that fucking haircut!

Up until recently my interest in Gen Z pop culture was dispassionate to say the least.  That was until a faithful reader and friend (Thanks, Nicole, for putting me through this crap) asked why a 16 year old with a bowl haircut would release a bio-pic world-wide when the 'bio' part of that equation was only, well, 16 years old?  Anyone and everyone over the age of, say, 16, is probably asking the same question.  At least when Myley Cyrus tried that shit in '08 her extended concert film, she played both her personae, and the show was also packed with other equally repulsive yet popular artists (yes, Jonas Brothers, I haven't forgotten about you and your fucking gay purity rings) and followed years of television and music deals.  It wasn't trying to be the bio-pic of some girl who was childishly famous, even though she had done a lot more - media wise - in her short life by that stage.

But, here we are.  It's 2011 (and although by this time I was hoping to be writing this article from a rocket car) I dump the word 'Beiber' into the searchie and get this.

 I have watched this clip 23 times now and I still don't know what the fucking
movie can possibly be about, other than "I'm special, fuck the rest of you."

Sure, the trailer starts out cute enough: "My name is Justin, and this is how I bang my tiny hands on furniture."  But then it gets all dramatic with ridiculous title overlays...

Who?  Who the fuck said "It" would never happen?

"They?"  Give me a hint!  The Freemasons?  Illuminati?  Presbytarians?  It was those fucking Presby wankers, wasn't it?

Ah, at least I know that the "You" here refers to every girl born after Napster died.

It's not until halfway through we get to the meat of the plot.

So, out of 5 widescreen, titleboard statements I've conceded one as accurate (about this being a 'true' story), inferred that one might possibly reference his fan base, while the rest are either completely unsupportable claims or outright lies.  Justin may be a lot of things, but, no, he is certainly not an ORDINARY KID.

Take a look at the head-byte of some supposedly grown adult I can't be bothered googling - he's wearing a cap, that's all I know - at 00:35 seconds into the trailer.  And I quote: "He's 16 and he's doing it all on his own."

What the fucking fuck!?!  Beiber has done absolutely nothing on his own.  And I'm probably including masturbation.  His mum posted anything featuring him making singing noises on Youtube since the kid was 12.  Then a year later she pretty much sold him to this guy after consulting God.  From there Mr "he's doing it on his own" cap-wearer managed the boy and created a new label with Usher just to make Beiber an icon.  He became so much of an icon that Braun and Usher's label merged with Island records no problem to make this teenager an even bigger craze.  So, between Justin's mum, manager (Braun) and mentor (Usher) I can safely say the little shit achieved nothing alone.

But that won't be the film you'll see, because "young, adequately talented tween gets made over into a star by a savvy Jewish entrepreneur, an already famous black singer, his insanely religious white mother and millions in investment dollars" doesn't seem as satisfying.  Anyway, when you're selling a product swiped from Youtube all your marketing is done for you.  Yes, this part-biography/mainly extended concert clip only has one target audience, like I said.  Girls aged between crayon-eating and training bra.

Or so I thought.  See, I actually took on this case because that afore-mentioned reader of mine told me that adult women also want a piece of this kid.  No way, I thought, JB is just what fills a girl's life in between the Wiggles and menstruation, right?  Uh-uh.  Seems not.  And now I'm sick to my stomach at the thought of this...

 The Beiber gang sign, or just putting in an order for hookers, I dunno.

..pashing this:

Take a good look, people.  Look at his haircut.  Is that the haircut

of somebody that ANY adult woman should be pashing?

That's Steffi Landerer.  You know Steffi, she was in the German version of Idol recently.  And she's an actress too, maybe.  But mainly (as in for as long as it has taken you to read this) you know her as the 20 year-old who mouth-kissed a 16 year old pop star.

And here we have a shot of Justin at some clip-thing he did with 31 year old socialite/waste of fucking oxygen, Kim Kardashian.

You know, just frolicking in the surf and discussing cleavage with a bowl-cut

boy half her age.

I'm not even amazed that the industry is rushing to sexualise him for an older audience, I'm just horrified that he started hanging with full grown women while still in that absurd haircut. 

What's that?  He's remodelling his 'do?  Cool, let's take a look.

The New Look Beiber, now with less hair, lowered testicles and... dog tags?

Hey, do you know what Beiber looks like to me with this new look?  Really fucking ordinary, just like any other kid who chose a pair of scissors over constant beatings in the school yard.  His producers/managers/publicists/manicurists are in a pickle now (which is why they probably had to rush that 3D abortion of a film out asap) because nothing loses flavour like a boy star who's now old enough to be an actual sexual threat to his fan base.  I'm not saying he's about to wantonly rape little girls, I just mean that his natural, pubescent behaviour will inevitably confuse and upset little girls.

I'm not kidding:

That kid (who makes a lot of Youtube vids for young kids, by the way) is all of 8 years old and feels disappointed in Justin because he pashed a chick, but also sorry for him because his parents are divorced and he might be feeling sad.  Or something.  Trust me, kid, Justin might feel a lot of things, but sad would not be on that top ten list.  Also, little girl, you can [butterfly]kiss his ass goodbye within 12 months because you'll slide out of his new demographic (16-24 yo females/16-65 yo gay men) and there's no going back. 

See, when you're a tween heart-throb your fan-base buys all your shit because they harrass their parents to do so.  Parents will relent, but only on the basis that you're a relatively asexual, cutesy momma's boy who would rather but a girl a pony than finger her behind the bike shed.  The moment your haircut looks less like something you'd usually find on a Lego man, and you're kissing real-life women, those parents are going to start questioning the innocence of your appeal and stop creasing their credit cards for little Tammy's Justin posters/dolls/tickets/lollypops.

See, that's the irony. folks, the Beiber Bowl Cut was what made the guy acceptable to adults.

With that in mind, I now say that Never Say Never is really a bio-pic of sorts, one that covers the pre-pubescent peak of a young boy's career as portrayed by the people that built him from the ground up.  The rest of his life probably won't be worth documenting in theatres, though, because, hey, what's another teenage-focused star in today's market?

Ah, Justin,. you're nearly old enough to assault in a car park

without it being a crime against a minor.  Can hardly wait.

Fuku Radioactive Scaremongers!

Acknowledgement: Special thanks to The Rev for his blessings upon this post, and vital fact-checking and sub-editing to reduce the risk of me sounding completely insane.

Dear Nuclear Holocaust(ers)
This post is a general vent re: post-Fukushima and the Japanese earthquake/tsunami disasters. The reactor complex took two massive natural hits, both of which were well beyond it's designed integrity limitations_ (a quake of richter scale 9 vs a design tolerance of 6.9, and a tsunami 15m high vs a 'safe' height of less than 10m). The resultant outcome was a reactor accident rated at level 5 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (Three Mile Island was also a fatality free level 5, while Chernobyl, with it's awful radiation emissions and multiple fatalities, has been classified the highest possible: level 7).  So, with that in mind, let's panic like sissies, or snort derisively at nuclear power, because, hey, you're a fucking physicist or some shit, right?

[Pictured: in no way a nuclear explosion, nuke plants are not bombs.]

The Fukushima plant did not melt down.  Not like Chernobyl. There were no direct deaths during the emergency from radiation or burns.  And that's despite all those hydrogen pressure explosions you saw on the news. Yes, some radiation from the plant did rise, and some of the braver damage control crews were exposed to up to 25% of a medically recommended dose, but it wasn't radioactive armageddon like the media threatened.

Is there anything more disappointing to an idealist than lying down on a quiet

wet road devoid of cops, security and industrial vehicles trying to pass?  Hope

there's a sliced lunch in your student backpack, sweetheart, because walking

home tube-chained to Derek there, just because the 'fascist pigs' couldn't be

fucked bolt-cutting you free, is going to be a drag.

Much of the plant is rendered to safe levels and the remaining irreparable chambers are shut down now. This means the three nuclear chambers unaffected by the earthquake, tsunami, and repair contingencies are now getting power back to thousands of citizens adversely affected by the meanest shake n' splash recorded against inhabited land for fuck-knows-how-long. The scaremongers and reactionaries, amateur ecologists and ambitious politicals all claim Fukushima to be just another (albeit only the third in the last 40 years) incident proving the lethality of nuke power.  Even though the 'nuclear' bit did not kill anyone!

I see it different. Fukushima, despite it's age (43 years), and the sheer magnitude of the Natural force arrayed against it, did a lot fucking better than it was designed to do and the people in charge, although could have done a little better in some places, on the whole saved many thousands of fucking lives by doing the job they were trained to do under hardships and adverse conditions.

But all you protestors go nuts, okay?  Coz, y'know, you're the experts.  If you had your way all nuke plants would be torn down right now and replaced with solar-electric, solar-thermal and wind-power crap.  Good luck finding enough constant sunshine, wind and available land to power an entire city with that plan, Earth Child.  Let's see how long you can run your podcasts, blogs and Youtube riots with bio-fuel generators or geo-thermal induction. The bottom line fuckers is that Solar is still too expensive and easily damaged, thermal is not fast enough and wind-power is too resource hungry on infrastructure and budget to be a viable sole source of electricity.

Listen, it's very easy to poo-poo stuff that we take for granted while running enough tech and appliances in a single home to power an entire African village.

In other words, THINK ABOUT WHY WE HAVE IT!  Nuclear power is the by far the most efficient form of power generation at our disposal to date.  It's cleaner and safer than it has ever has been.  It doesn't cause anywhere near the pollution or direct dangers of coal or similar fossil fuels (an average of 590 coal miners die on the job each year in North America alone - 34 died at Chernobyl, the most catastrophic meltdown in history – mind you Chernobyl went down because of management decisions guiding and controlling the bottom line like how often the fuckers had safety checks. So the technology did not fail the system of humans supporting it failed.).

Look at the Long Game

Best of all, nuke fission is our gateway technology to developing viable nuclear fusion (100% waste free power).  We can do it already, but it costs fucktons in resources and coinage to generate the heat and magnetic containment fields required to fuse hydrogen and helium isotopes and produce a net gain of energy. 

"Yeah, sure, Sex Detective, feed us some Trekkie sci-fi bullshit to justify

nasty nuke power."

Fuck you, eco-savage.  The first proto-type is already under construction in France, and an even better version is planned for construction in 15 years.  None of which would be possible without the advances already made through nuclear power.

Look, I'm all for sustainable, renewable, affordable and workable power solutions, but the most vocal protestors against what we have to do to power our civilisation right now sometimes have a political and financial agenda, and not a practical one.  They are deeply passionate about cleaning up the Earth, but they're even more horny about gaining acclaim and credit.  I have yet to meet a Direct Action type of Greenie or conservationist who wasn't operating under the personal assumption that she/he were absolutely right.  TIP: be wary about anyone who believes they are absolutely, 100% right.  Sane people are designed to doubt, it's a built in check and balance system that stops you from doing really stupid things.

See, this sort of stuff (pictured above) is what I call 'non-stupid' eco-protesting.  There's plenty of placards, props, chanting, maybe a sausage sizzle and even a face painter for the kids.  The messages are direct, if a little alarmist.  I mean, seriously, nobody at all would love a 'nukeburnt' country no matter how pro-nuclear they might be, surely.

Toxic waste is always the secondary scare argument against nuke power - it's glowy, greeny goo that mutates fish and wantonly poisons kindergartens or something.  But try looking at where toxic waste comes from in general, idiots.  Here's a toxic waste source the militant econauts usually skip over - the production and then eventual disposal of solar panel cells, just like the ones on your suburban roof.  That shit will kill anything, but it doesn't stop the biggest producers of solar panels from dumping their shit in ground water sites (well done, China). The average recycling paper mill dumps more poisons, bleaches and toxins into our river systems and land fills per month than any nuclear power plant would in a year.

Then here we get a giant, inflatable elephant, which is all kinds of awesome as well as being a definitively misguided, metaphorical cliche.  White elephants describe an unnecessarily expensive or spectacularly unuseful thing - a waste or liability that outweighs its promises.  That would be great if that sentiment was focused on some of the more ridiculous dreams in the clean energy circles (eg: perpetual cold fusion), but to brand nuclear energy as such a pale beast is palpably unfair.  Places that rely on nuke-kettles for electricity tend to have cheaper power bills, cleaner air and stronger energy grids than coal burning equivalents.  Their workers are safer, their supply is more reliable, and once set up, a nuke plant can, pound for pound, output many times the juice of fossil fuel, solar, hydro, geothermal, wind or any other type of generator.

Then we get the extreme, or 'Direct Action', protests.

They're always fucking chaining themselves to shit: gates, bulldozers, trees, other protestors, you name it.  Here we see prostrate eco-warriors cuffed to each other within a metal tube.  This makes it all the harder for some poor cop to bolt-cutter the cuffs coz he'll have to somehow cut through the tube first.  Well done, martyrs, you've really struck a blow for the planet, but that still doesn't explain why the hippie on the left is wearing a badger on his face.

These are just the sort of exhibitionists that pray (and provoke) to get clubbed or tazed or dragged away by tax-paid law enforcement.  Antagonists in these highly charged confrontations - where irresistable forces and immovable objects meet in a clash of wills - always claim 'peaceful protest' while unpeacefully resisting removal.  Not too many Gandhis in the eco-war movement.  Bruises, abrasions and court appearances are a badge of office to these people.  They will compete with each other to push the envelope.  They will break into restricted areas, harrass shipping, sabotage equipment, blockade transport routes, and basically carry on like an ADHD platoon at a tantrum convention.

Of course, there are also those who have embraced the Japanese disasters as a boon, a chance to revive and reinvigorate old causes.  See, the 21st Century has been most unkind to the anti-nuke movement because environmental protection is no longer a fringe, radical point of contention.  Thanks to the likes of Al Gore, Kyoto and the Internet, everyone has at least some basic and common understanding that fucking up the biosphere is a bad idea.  The number of individual eco-causes has multiplied exponentially - green energy programs, sustainable communities, Earth Hour, car pooling, waste recycling, carbon taxes, lead-free fuel, desalination plants, energy saving everything, the list is endless.  Nuke power is just one of many concerns nowadays.

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, or you could all turn off the juice at work and

home just 1 minute earlier every weekday of the year and save 5 or so hours,

but nooo, that's way less cool, right?

So, to all those who protest, bitch, whine and cry about scary energy sciences that you don't understand, I say keep up the good, righteous and ignorant work, morons.  We, as a progressive species, should have expanded, and hence refined and polished, safe nuclear energy decades ago, but you zealots treated it like some kind of evil sorcery and kept us back.  I mean, for fuck's sake, most of us still rely on coal!?!  COAL!  Lumps of fossilised flora to boil water for steam turbines that spin and generate the electricity to power your hybrid cars.  This concept and basic application hasn't changed for over a two hundred years, people.  Coal is dirty to burn and dangerous to mine (look at tassie and new zealands mining disasters).  It fucks up our atmosphere on a scale our planet hasn't seen since everything was volcanoes, and is used in its dirtiest forms (namely coarse, Brown coal) by the biggest users (yes, I'm looking at you again, China). The ultimate thruth is that we are running out of coal resources and we are increasingly needing to take risks to get more of it. Another point is it takes coal to power the refineries that are processing our other fossil fuels like crude oil so we are using one fuel to create another and we are actually running out of both. Even our crude oil deposits are getting scarce so rapidly that shale oil is finally being looked at as a viable resource to exploit even though two years ago it was considered ridiculous to think about. Nuclear energy is a hell of a lot more cleaner. We mine less materials (especially if Thorium is used and not Uranium as this element is plentiful everywhere.) We produce less waste and gain more electical output.

Green energy is everyone's goal, not just an elite cadre of eco-snobs who think the world is a giant corporate conspiracy.  Grow up and face a few facts, not least of which is that efficient, carbon-neutral, low toxic power sources require a lot of money to develop.  Who's going to fund it?  You?  No.  Me?  Fuck no.  It will be big business and government programs.  The same corporate and government programs that gave us commercially hybrid cars, bio-fuels and solar panel subsidies.

Facebook Cause of the Week - Kiddy Beauty Krap

Here's something new I'm trying, selecting what I believe is a worthy FB cause and promoting it.  Some of my choices will inevitably be satirical, but this one is legit.  I support this cause 1000% because I find the subject matter so fucking horrifying.

If you haven't already, sign up to this page.  Now.  I'm not fucking around, you either sign up or I'll raze everything your hold dear be disappointed, because if I ever see or hear of this shit going down in this country (Australia, for you people who don't know me) I will personally lead a bullet-filled apocalypse  support every group and movement against it.  That's right, peons, I'm talking about...

Child Beauty Pageants
I often found it interesting when my fellow citizens complained about Australia becoming 'Americanised'.  You don't hear that complaint so much now, but 20 years ago it was a real issue.  Of course, nowadays we live in a globalised society where we're not so fearful of being American-assimilated because, hey, who cares?  A lot of Aussie kids are into Halloween, 80% of our TV programming is either directly imported from the States or a carbon copy of their formats.  We love their pop culture, their music, their fashion, even their beer.*  Australian evangelism is indistinguishable from the bible-belt American type, business models here are identical, hell, even most of the porn you watch is, yes - you guessed it - Yankee made.

* Hahahahaha!  I jest 'til I weep, folks.

But I dare anyone to select a cross-section of parents from any Australian city and ask what they think of us having 'Child Beauty Pagents' (CBPs for short) and I can guarantee the majority consensus would be "Nah, that doesn't quite feel right."  In fact, any Aussie parent who in any way cares about children would actually find the suggestion at least a little creepy and cringe-worthy.  Sure, we're happy to send in baby pics for nappy competitions, but infants can only ever be presented as infants, no matter how much you try to put one in a tuxedo.  Once our kids get to walking and talking, though, we have a strong tradition of letting them just be kids.

Here, let me show you a professional artist's portrait of an American child beauty pagent contestant:

The subject is no more than 7 years old.

To many seppos this image is nothing special, just another glamour shot of a kid competing with similarly groomed kids in a pageant where winners get ribbons and maybe a modelling deal or, more likely, just a fucking ribbon.

Now, to most Aussies I know, the reaction would be a little different: starting with "How old is she meant to be?" and ending with "What the holy fuck have you done to that little girl, you monsters!?!"

These 'beauty competitions' have been around for about 90 years, and originated in Atlantic City when some idiot thought it would boost tourism in that city ("Come and see our burlesque 6 year olds!  Or enter your own!  Cash prizes daily for sick, obsessive, vicarious parents!").  Like cheerleading, CBPs swept the country and is now an established sub-culture.  And, like cheerleading, it is completely ungoverned and unregulated.  Despite possible cash rewards, it is not considered an exploitation of child labour, and so long as the kid isn't missing school there's no conflict with any welfare or education laws either.

But even so, America, come on!  This shit is fucked up.  If you want your kid to gain a chance at aesthetic fame, enrol them in an age-appropriate modelling school or agency.  There's nothing wrong with a 6 year old posing for a clothing catalogue that sells stuff for 6 year olds.  If you want to boost your kid's self-esteem, poise, public speaking skills and confidence (these being the most common reasons given by parents), then let them do that shit at primary school, or get them to join a kiddy choir at your local church or some shit.  And if you want to use your own, young flesh & blood as a means to boost your insecure popularity or correct your own childhood short-comings, then, well, fuck you!  Grow the fuck up and let your kid get on with being a kid, not some grotesque living doll for your to show off at a glamour-slave trade-show.

Some of my more mature readers will recall back in 1996 when this little girl was found murdered in the cellar of her family home.  Her name was JonBenét Ramsey, 6 years old, CBP contestant, among other things.  At the time much controversy was raised about CBPs due to her being a regular contestant, and whether or not that led to her high profile alleged kidnapping and subsequent death.

Although her family were initially suspected (sure there was a ransom note, but let's fucking face it, the body was found in their own cellar), the case remains unsolved to this day due to conflicting forensic/DNA evidence.

As horrible as that crime was, the fact that her family entered her in CBPs like a damn prized poodle did kick up some anti-pageant shit.  Not that it lasted long, mind you.  I'm not just exploiting JonBenét Ramsey's (what the hell kinda name is that anyway?) tragic murder to challenge the CBP concept.  What I am doing is this: when this case was first aired in Australia and we all saw this photo, the reaction by just about every free thinking adult I knew was "Why the hell is that little kid covered in make-up and mousse?  Holy shit, pre-school beauty pageants are real!?!  I'm going home to cover my daughter's face in mud and make her wear potato sacks everywhere because whatever caused that poor little girl's make-over I am, as of right fucking now, aiming for the exact opposite!"

See, most of the official protest here against CBPs is based on psychology - the consequences of persuading little kids to compete as models (you know, the eventual effect on their self-esteem later, body image problems, the use of cosmetic chemicals etc).  That's all valid, and I have nothing but robust praise for such protestors.  But I'm the goddamn Sex Detective, so my real problem with all this horrible crap is the sexualisation of little people. Kids who aren't old enough to lose their baby teeth sure as hell shouldn't have to worry about sexuality for another half a decade at least.  You start dressing them like teen dolls and teaching them to act all sexy-like, you're not just messing with their psyche, you're feeding an addiction in a kind of technically human sub-culture you don't even want to admit exists.

The real, dark issue...
See, we're not big on sexualising our kids in Australia, especially not for personal gain or glory. We kinda frown on the possible implications of trying to make pre-schoolers dress and act like youngt adults because that sort of grooming is usually the domain of pedophiles. Down here we call them rock spiders, along with a whole lot of other passionate, descriptive names. I know that yanks are, by and large, anti-child molestor too, but come on, you fuckers! Dressing little kids up like adults? Slathering them in make-up, cosmetic jewellery and even two-piece swimsuits? Coaching them to display adult-like mannerisms and affectations like flirtatious winking or blowing kisses to pageant judges?  That's tailor-made fantasy fodder for kiddie-fiddlers. 

Listen, unlike conventional rapists who desire absolute sexual power over another adult, tamperers instead desire an adult sexual connection with children.  They don't typically use direct force.  They relish the thought of sexualising kids, cultivating them into sexual equals instead of letting children mature normally.  Corrupting, conditioning and desensitising little kids into thinking that they are little adults in the bedroom. 

I know just how sickeningly complex such predators are, I spent years in Child Protection-related roles fighting to deny them their prey.  I've met these maggots in person, seen them trying to ply their cat and mouse trade, experienced their psychotic rage when the good guys intervene in time.  I've also seen the results when the good guys don't make it in time, the developmental damage inherent in children subjected to premature sexualisation.  Even been to a few funerals because a worst case scenario actually turned out to be so much more so.

If I were to directly imply that any parent intent on preparing and entering their child into an American formatted CBP was actually - if inadvertently - feeding the fantasies of rock spiders, there would be all sorts of litiguous backlash.

Fine. 

This is what I'm saying instead.

Pedophiles groom kids to sexualise their young identities and normalise premature sexual behaviour.  They do this by modifying the kid's behaviour and presentation until it resembles a warped, twisted version of superficial adulthood.

You know, as opposed to this:

This is not photoshopped, it's real and you can bet

 your ass some reptile has it plastered on his basement

 wall, people.

So, to those traitrous cunt few Australians who see no problem in pimping the appearance and behaviour of their kindergarten kids so you can feel like you're contributing to their tiny futures, then go right ahead.  I'm sure you have only their interests at heart.  But make no fucking mistake, every time your little princess is televised or photographed on stage in her gown/skirt/swimsuit I will guarantee you that 100 child-molesting in your home city will be furiously masturbating to that image.

Just because my words are disgustingly shocking doesn't mean they are any less true.

vs a Site of Biblical Proportions

There's no way I can take full credit for this piece.  It's the result of a skype link and a very funny conversation I had with the one man I can always rely on to sink lower than me when it comes to investigating sexual insanity.  Thanks, Shane.

This site is fucking awesome.  Not only does the colour scheme scream 'Occular Rape!", but they've even compressed the whole thing into an unnecessarily narrow central column, like they were waiting for an incredible background decal that never arrived.  Kinda like the Second Coming.

Seriously, all this is crammed into the middle 33% of your screen.

Oh, and did I refer to this as just a 'site'?  Burn in Hades, Pagan!  The top left blurb clearly describes this as a "mega-site".  That's the equivalent of my shitty little blog site times Jesus to the power of God.  And check out the list of popular areas on right side of the page: Creation Super Library!  Web Bible!  Teen Qs!  Kid Explorers!  Even something called The Hope!

(THE SEX DETECTIVE x JESUS)^GOD = MEGA-SITE

It's simple maths.

But I'm a goddamned Sex Detective, not some freak interested in exploring kids or libraries with special powers.  No, ma'am, I'm all about the naaasty, the rude stuff, rumpy pumpy, the good ol' hole in one.  I also scrutinise the weirdest part of sexual relations - the humans who do it.  So, I started on this site by diving into the universal starting point of all sexual stupidity: adolescence.

When it comes to sex, there's nothing dumber than a teenager.  Teenagers obssess about sex hourly, yet gladly do fuck all to learn about it except in a kind of osmotic, trial by error way.  Teenagers believe that preganacy can be cured with a 2 litre Coca-Cola douche.  Teenagers think that anal sex technically protects their sexual purity.  They're sorta like real people, only with incomplete brains and fingers that smell like thrush.  Christian teens are the worst because their definition of fun is also my definition of living death.  Which is hardly surprisng given that they worship a magic space zombie.

Anyway, let's get a taste of how a mega-site answers today's most pressing teen questions.

Questions like: What About Gays Needs to Change?

Christianity vs Homosexuality as a Self-esteem Issue
Um, okay, this one is obviously from a highly presumptive teen.  Luckily there's a Pastor and 'former homosexual' who has the answer.  An answer that includes analogies about muscular, sweaty men and meeting young, very handsome males with sexuality issues at Church.  His answer is to describe gayness as a self-image disorder, and to not try to convert to straightness, but instead to simply abstain from gay activity.  He even does us the favour of directly comparing queerness with eating disorders.  No shit.

Meet Tim Wilkins, Minister of the suspiciously named 'Cross Ministry'. He 

used to have a homosexual self-image problem until he stopped fucking other
dudes in public toilets and started ministering to them instead. 
In public toilets.

I can tell just by the way this freak constructs sentences that his homosexuality is a lot less former than he makes out.  He says it's not about not being homosexual, it's about not being immoral, got it?  What the fucking fuck, fucktard?  Do you know what I find immoral?  Assuming that homosexuals are all about lust and nothing about love.

When not denying how sexuality really works, Tim likes to take his

definitely-not-gay, fluffy little dog for a walk in secluded parks

So maybe that's a bad example.  Let's try another teen question.

Christianity vs Other Christianity?

I met this guy I really like. The other day, I found out he is a Jehovah's Witness. I know it's probably wrong for me to see him, but I was wondering if there could be a possibility of me changing his religion. I am scared he will go to hell if I don't. Can you help me?

This one always confuses me, because I know that both Pentecostals and JW's are Christians.  They both interpret the Bible literally, though JW's are nontrinitarian monotheists, and fucking weird as shit, and obsessed with armageddon, and also don't believe in celebrating birthdays, holidays or pretty much anything.  They do give pretty good head, though, from what I've experienced. 

We had one of these down the road from my place.  I always imagined it was

 like the Hall of Justice for the Superfriends.

Born-agains, by minor contrast, are Henotheists, believing in the Trinity, as well as glossolalia (babbling made up words), faith healing (the magical curing of made up illnesses), some truly awful rap songs, and getting beat down by school bullies for their self-righteous arrogance and pleated pants.

 Pentecostals are also renowned for their physical and self-referential humour, racial

diversity, disturbingly literal puns, possible repressed fetishes, and really retarded

cartoonists.

Awright, Christian Answers, let's hear some of your 'holier-than-Jehovah Witness' advice being offered to this girl!

"First, get with one or two of your close Christian friends and begin praying for this guy. Only God can change his heart. Ask Him to do that."

So, you're essentially asking some kids to pray for another kid to the same God that other kid already prays to.  And how come God exclusively gets to change people's hearts all of a sudden?  What happen to free will, choosing a path and all that crap? 

Personally I'd recommend that you bribe this guy with a boob flash to get him to your special church.  Worked all the time on me when I was 16*. 
*Then I found out that Christians are all about the 'no sex thing before marriage', which wasn't much different to my definition of Hell anyway so I figured I had little to lose turning agnostic.

"Secondly, talk to your youth pastor or some other Christian adult, preferably a male, and ask him to begin witnessing to this guy. Ask him to talk to this guy about his relationship with the Lord."

Yeah, send in some cheerily creepy grown up to preach to the kid.  Let's witness to someone who, by their very title, is already a fucking Witness.  This shit is going to up like the lamest Pokemon battle you've ever seen, with quotes, counter-quotes and a heated exchange of pamphlets until someone bursts into tears.

Groan, the Teen Q's section is ridiculously generic and, well, soft, even for middle-class evangelists.  There's not one question about penis pimples or vaginal discharges, or any of the other real issues that haunt young people.

So, let's see how the grown up issues of today's Christians are tackled.

Christianity vs Porn
Here's a common enough query, and one that will always be topical for as long as we have the internet:

How Can I Tell if I'm Getting Addicted to Pornography?
Wow, you should really read the in-depth answer to this one.  I mean, shit, I had no idea pornography was a gateway drug to "rape, incest and child molestation".  No kidding, the eventual and inevitable road of pervy behaviour is those three things.  Do have any idea how many people watch porn?  Neither do I, but I'm pretty fucking sure it's more than just me.  If this site is correct, then right now - as you sit there moving your lips and reading my words - millions of folks around the world are literally raping their own children.  Thanks for destroying civilisation, Porn!

But the question wasn't actually "How do I know if I'm addicted to raping my little sister?" so I'll wind this back a bit and share the four key questions from the official porn addiction test.

ONE - Is Your Behavior Secret?
Well, I'd probably prefer the term 'private', not 'secret'.  I mean, I don't call my friends or a priest or government once I finish milking my man muscle watching it.  And porn watching isn't typically a team sport.  Okay, so let's say 'yes' to that one.

TWO - Is Your Behavior Abusive?
Um, I don't think so.  I'm usually pretty okay physically and emotionally afterwards, though I do tend to feel a bit drowsy.  Also, I take responsible steps to avoid any chafing, so 'no' I am not abusive with my porn habits.

THREE - Is Your Behavior Used to Deaden Painful Feelings?
Absolutely!  Short of any appropriate company, porn is a great way to deaden that painful feeling in my balls.  'Yes' to that one then.

FOUR - Is Your Behavior Empty of Genuine Commitment and Caring?
Am I genuinely committed and caring towards my porn?  No way, that would just be creepy (as opposed to my last three answers).  So my final answer is 'yes' to question 4, Christian Answers.

That gives me a score of 75%, which isn't too shabby.  Now let's see what than means according to the Christianity experts.

"If you answered yes to even one of the four questions, your sexual behavior is either compulsive or addictive."


Bugger, either I'm doomed to be an incestuous pedophile, or I can be saved by becoming a Born Again Christian.  One path condemns me as a violent, evil deviant worthy only of a painful death.  But the other means being a Born Again Christian.  Gimme a few days to think about it.

Or I could just keep watching porn and not do the rape/incest/molestation things, just like I haven't for the last 20 years.


Christianity: Dating the Right Way
Okay, one more Q&A from these Bible-boning, God-gobbling, Jesus-jizzing, horny-with-the-Holy Spirit sages.

What are the Biblical guidelines for dating relationships?

Well, shit, that sounds pretty tame territory.  Did the Abrahamic God-followers even have a concept called 'dating' 6 000 years ago?  I thought it was all about fighting the Sumerians, Hittites, Phillistines or whoever, taking their women, then enforcing marriages which resulted in 13 year old pregnancies that spat out little Semites to grow up to fight Sumer... you get the point.  It was brutal as all fuck, a breeding war between races.  No dating, just mating and hating.

But that shows you how much I know, because Dawson McAllister has responded with a step by step answer to this possibly self-manufactured question.  Who's Dawson McAllister, you may reverently ask?  Fucked if I know, but the internet pegs him as some sort of preachy radio celebrity and blogger in Ass-Fuck, Tennessee.  Here's a friendly pic of the guy:

Complete with dentured smile, dyed and refoliated hair,

intelligent glasses and a smashing taste in jumpers.  Looks

 quite innocuous, doesn't he?

Yep, anyone that normal looking scares the hell out of me too.  Jeez, a skim of his answer also looks normal, all well phrased and formatted, enriched with definitive quotes from scripture.

Here's a taste of that normalcy:

We should date for fun, friendship, personality development and selection of a mate, not to be popular or for security.

And some follow up statistics...

Realize that over 50% of girls and over 40% of guys never date in high school.

Wow, I know he's trying to reassure people, but now I just feel depressed for young people.  Maybe his 4-point guide to Christian dating will lift my mood?

1. Guard your heart. ... boring, what does that even mean, and who cares?

2. You are known by the company you keep. ... so pick a cool name for your Jesus gang.

3. Christians should only date other Christians. ... like they have a fucking choice.

4. Is it really love? ... hang on, this last one sounds like it might... yes, it does, it defines exactly was 'love' is!  After thousands of years of philosophical debate, finally there's an answer.  And in bullet form too...

Godammit, Dawson!  Last time I had a relationship like that I was 4 years old and my significant other was a beret-wearing teddy bear called - for reasons that transcend age and reason - 'Water Bear'.  St Paul wrote a lot of soppy crap like this to the Corinthians, who I assume were a society of pussies he was trying to seduce.  Pity that list can in no way completely apply to any real human.  Not easily angered?  That's an inevitable consequence of familiarity.  Never boast about each other?  Sounds almost insulting.  Keep no record of wrongs?  St Paul clearly dated exactly zero women.

Dawson could have boiled this down to a simple "are you both soft-cock nobodies?  Yes?  Great, you can date because the rest of the world, let alone God, literally won't care."

For people who do care, though, there's some more advice.  Kinda.  Maybe more like a series of warnings -or tips - depending on how you look at it.  This section is labelled How Far Is Too Far? , even though it's not about rape or deep throating at all.  If anything, it's about the opposite of rape, like advice on how not to get lucky on a date.  Avoid alcohol and drugs!  Avoid anyone with any sort of reputation!  Don't go to places where you might feel attracted to your date!

Then comes the anti-sex stuff: 'Corinthians 6:18 says to "flee from sexual immorality." We cannot do this if we are tempting ourselves through carelessness.'  I have no idea how to tempt myself through carelessness, clumsiness or absent-mindedness, I'm more of a 'tempt via action' kinda guy.  He also warns: 'Don't engage in any impure contact that is sexually motivated, such as petting.'

Like I said, these fuckers have no idea what 'dating' means.  They think it can be done while methodically avoiding all the things that define it.  How would you even know you were on a date if you heeded these warnings?  According to these anti-rules I've already accidentally dated three family members, the parcel delivery guy, and my dentist.  And that was just Tuesday.

Okay, so what do you do if you go on a date and some sort of impure contact/words/thoughts do occur?  That's where Dawson's third section comes in: If You Have Already Gone Too Far, Why Stop?

That's either rhetoric or he's grooming a serial killer - oh, I see, it's actually advice on how to retroactively abrade what little joy you inadvertently experience when you failed to flee from possible sexual immorality.  Dawson cuts this answer into 3 bullets this time:

See what I mean about the whole Christian dichotomy of dire warnings then pussy-centred consequences?
First there's the universal 'get out of jail free' forgiveness card.  Then a reminder that the unproveable entity you decided to worship is always right, no matter what.  Finally there's the cautionary 'nobody wants your used vagina' assertion.

Conclusion
Holy shit, this has been a real journey.  And trust me when I say that what I've shared with you is only the tip of Christianity's premier mega-site.  Christian Answers?  You bet, and by the bucket load.

Sure, the answers are effectively limited to "No!", "Stop touching it!" or "Because God fucking well said so!", but at least there's now a universal repository of literalist biblical opinion, a place where prominent believers of mythological things can share their interpretations of the fantastic and baseless with the next generation of delusional Gnostics.  Sorry, but sites like this really do remind me why I hiss at crucifixes and masturbate in confessional boothes: any (staged) Q&A forum that presumes to apply ancient knowledge to modern problems is ass-backwards.  Don't give me any of that 'nothing new under the sun' bollocks either!  That's just for traditionalists who can't adapt to change so they clumsily retrofit it into their unyielding mindset instead.  Everything is new, the world is always changing.  Whether you believe in a god or not, decide to date or not, watch porn or not, or even try to side-step your sexuality by redefining it with bullshit,  the world will keep moving ahead.  And so will I.