I feel exactly the same way as you do. I too - watched about half and hour of "Instinct" and within ten minutes they were ramming it down our throats that he had a husband - I thought - here we go - another exercise in political correctness - I turned it off before it got any further. I was watching some play a while back - I don't think it was a film - there were two gays in a park - one spotted what they would no doubt term "a cute guy" some small distance away who was smiling at him - so he says something like "I'm going after him - we can talk about adopting a child when I come back". This was apparently perfectly acceptable to the one remaining behind. I think there are going to be a lot of court cases when these adopted children grow up. Our adverts now feature two women - one who introduces the other as her wife. I never see an advert with a straight person introducing someone as their spouse. Men kiss each other in adverts - haven't seen females do it yet - but no doubt it will happen. My point is that there is no reason for it - other than forcing acceptance of homosexuality on everyone. To make it the norm. If it was the norm humanity would die out. My feelings about sex between gay people and straight people are exactly the same - they should do what they want to do in private and not inflict it on people who are simply not interested in it. I study adverts - they reflect social trends very accurately. Watch who are featured - who are on the fringes - who they expect to buy what. One question out of interest regarding adverts - do you have adverts for male incontinence products in America I only ask because we do not get them over here and I have a theory why not.

I had to double check to be sure that we have TV ads for male incontinence products. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NKvN7U5RXQ It's a funny ad. I'm curious about your theory on why you don't have those ads.

We have endless ads for female hygiene products over here - and they are all based on female empowerment - "I will be me" is one tag word - but in my view all these adverts portray is what makes a female weaker than a male - it is a lie based on a buzzword - these products do not empower females - quite the reverse - all they do is enrich manufacturers. We have one advert where a woman is flying through the trees on her way to marry her lover in the treetops - this is for Tenalady - now - reverse the scenario - and imagine Tarzan flying through the trees in incontinence pants - doesn't quite work does it !! My belief is that there are no incontinence products for men in ads because manufacturers can't figure out a spin to put on it and men will never accept being portrayed as weak because all adverts directed at men portray products to make them irresistible to the sex of their choice. Thank you for your research - I have to submit this reply first else I'll lose it - again - I never remember to copy !! Hmm - watched the ad - it's all about control then - something men demand - I see no close up in glorious technicolour of men actually wearing incontinence pants as we do for women over here. The female right to privacy has been stripped bare and no remnant of modesty remains - and they put up with it - there is no lobby for their right not to have their most private functions displayed on every channel every day. Somebody read the female mind very accurately - tell them we are empowering them and they will accept anything.

At some point the powers that be in the television media world (who are in bed with every leftist cause and agenda) decided to declare war on modesty and shame.

I can recall when advertisements for Phillips "Milk of Magnesia" were considered a bit edgy. One ad featured a middle aged black woman talking to a friend of hers, hinting at the problem of her husband's constipation as she and her friend exchanged knowing looks and smiles. Her husband, having overheard them turned toward his wife and said "MARTHA" with an embarrassed scowl on his face, expressing his displeasure that she would speak of his bowel movement issues with someone else. Martha continued by telling her friend how she gives hubby a dose of Milk of Magnesia in the evening and he is a new man in the morning. Cut to picture of husband smiling.

That was the way they dealt with the cultural reservations for discussing bowel movements in public. The manufacturer of the product needed to find a way to advertise their product on television. Usually they ran an advert. with a patient talking to his doctor confidentially, whispering the word "constipation" to be sure the nurse couldn't hear him. The ad with the black lady chatting with her good friend was risqué for the time.

Of course, if someone is too shy to even ask a store clerk where the product is located, that is a problem. But the TV execs decided that any modesty, any decorum, any conservative convention should be painted as outdated, and unhealthy. They went to the extreme and created a mess, far worse than that of a shy person who is afraid to admit they need a laxative.

We used to shield children from certain adult subjects until they reached a certain age, and/or level of maturity and understanding. And we used to shield them from pedophiles. We didn't speak about homosexuality. We didn't speak about a great many things in the presence of children. We allowed them to just be children, to retain their innocence of adult subjects until they physically and mentally matured. I don't mean to suggest that sex education 50 or 100 years ago was done perfectly, or that it couldn't be improved upon.

But today the leftists use government and civilian powers to punish those who try to shield children from any type of homosexual, transvestite, or transgender instruction. As I mentioned once before, even pre-school boys are sometimes being given female hormones and dressed as girls. Anyone who objects to this medical experimentation is subjected to every possible punishment the leftists can construct. We know that giving sex hormones to patients increases their risk for certain forms of cancer. And there is no precedent and no experience in giving such hormones to young children. There is no medical reason for it. Dr. Mengele never did this to his 'patients', perhaps because it never occurred to him. But it is just as unethical and immoral to experiment on these children today as it was for Mengele to do some of the things he did. It will be many, many years before we know what the results are for those kids.

The media today is intent on trying to normalize everything we used to shield children from. That is why they continue to throw it in our faces. It is part of the cultural Marxism strategy for destroying all traditional cultural ideas and indoctrinating the young with new ideas. That is why they continually reinforce the grievance groups, the victim identities, and teach them that Utopia will come when we old bigots are dead and gone. At the same time they praise socialism. A majority of young college students poll as favoring socialism, even though they cannot define it. It is discouraging to see these young people, some of whom claim to be "anti-Fascist" even while they behave exactly like Mussolini's black shirts and Hitler's brown shirts. They have been conditioned, indoctrinated with hatred. They cannot think for themselves.

There are also encouraging signs, but the media and the 'deep state' leaders, who favor a dictatorship, are actively pushing for the destruction of all traditional points of view.

there I go again. I can't seem to keep from cycling back around gain to certain themes.

Because those themes are ever present in today's society. In Britain they are denying parents the right to choose what sexual education their infant children are indoctrinated with. You hear men saying "I knew I was gay from the age of five" - in my day we didn't know what sex was at the age of five - let alone homosexuality. No wonder children are raping and impregnating each other before they even leave school. Ten year old boys becoming fathers - 12 year old girls becoming pregnant - and who supports the resultant children - the state most of the time. If sex education was such a good thing - then why is this happening? If you are going to teach children about sex then teach them about contraception. There is still a lot of opposition to sex education so young and we are so multi-cultural that views of homosexuality and transgenderism is inflaming all cultures who are not as liberal as our indigenous people. Being as we bend over backwards not to offend ethnic minorities it might even be a good thing. Did the parents approve of those young boys being given hormones and dressed as girls? What sane parent would allow their child to be medically experimented upon? Why? That film about the gay couple in the park was called "Sex in the Park" and has been described as "sweet" - chasing rough trade to have sex in the bushes whilst your partner waits for you to discuss adopting a child is apparently "sweet". I have to laugh at those posts you get on Facebook that list things like - if you disapprove of gays - if you disapprove of fat people - if you disapprove of black people - etc etc then you are an A-hole. Yet apparently they can disapprove of me and that somehow does not make them an A-hole. !! Judge not lest ye be judged applies to everybody - not just those with the biggest mouths. But that is the level of intelligence and logic you are faced with today.

I am assuming the parents supported giving the boy female hormones, although I have heard of parents facing problems if they oppose transgenderism when the boy has been convinced that he should be a girl (with help from his teachers, no doubt).

Concerning the Facebook hypocrisy, that isn't an accident, it is cultural Marxism in practice.

"Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the right & toleration of movements from the left."

• Herbert Marcuse

It is planned. The Left has intentionally been fighting a very dirty culture war for decades now. Conservatives have tried to placate them, compromise (but always the compromise is a one way street). But that is like a group of people in the wilderness being hounded by a pack of wolves, attempting to placate the wolves by tossing one of their numbers out of the wagon. The wolves will eat him, and then come back for more.

I don't care if they call me an asshole, a fascist, a bigot, or a racist. They don't say that stuff because they think it is objectively true. They have been taught to ridicule the opposition, especially if they are losing an argument based on the facts. Instead of arguing about the facts of an issue, they attempt to make the argument about the other person, to isolate them, make accusations, and spew hatred towards them, and ridicule them. That isn't simply the tactic of a weak minded individual, it is a major tactic taught to leftists. (Read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky). Alinsky taught that ridicule is a powerful weapon. I cannot recall a time when I attempted to debate a leftist on climate change, or any other issue, when they did not resort to name calling, insults, and so on. If they call you a moron, a crazy zealot, a racist, a "denier", etc. they have discredited you before others and they no longer need to address the facts you presented. They hope to get you to defend yourself, or to drop down to their level and call them names. But even if not, they have changed the subject away from the argument they could not win.

Ridicule is a powerful weapon if you allow it to be. I think the best way to deal with an aggressor in a debate is to wait for them to finish their rant and then simply repeat the question which will give them no chance to change the subject. They will look idiotic if they go off on another diatribe because it will become apparent that they have no answer. For a while now I have had an acquaintance who seems to have a psychological need to disagree with everything I say and uses veiled comments to insult me. I don't get angry and fight back any more - it just fuels their fire - I just put my bored face on and stare into space. It tees them off because there is absolutely no response to that.

That's basically what I try to do now. Sometimes I play dumb - friendly and act like I don't even realize they insulted me. They want me to get angry and defensive, and then hit back. When I don't it confuses them. Sometimes they wind up talking about issues a little bit.

I am glad you have developed a defence strategy - it took me a while to subdue my natural need to respond in kind to aggressors before I realised how pointless it was. I have been finding it so hard to find anything to watch on Netflix - I never watch comedies or rom-coms or anything animated - so whilst it seems they have a lot of choice - for me they don't. I have been re-watching "House of Cards" the British version with Ian Richardson - sadly no longer with us - but a good actor. Like most series with American versions (sorry !!) I find this version highly superior to the American one - mainly because it is more subtle both in acting and content. I thought the American version of "Get Carter" was awful - missed the entire point of the story because Sly didn't die !! The only re-make I actually like is "The Day of the Jackal" or "Jackal" as it was known in America - I think the original was far more classy but the remake was very entertaining. I think I watched a lot of stuff on sky box sets which is why you probably haven't seen the same things - we have changed to Virgin now and their selection of box sets is pathetic. As a matter of interest - are you interested in criminology at all? I have a fascination for forensics and serial killers. I am also fascinated by cases like "The Black Dahlia" and Jimmy Hoffa.

I will have to watch the British version of House of Cards. I may struggle a bit to follow it since I am not too familiar with your legal system but I will probably catch on after a bit. I do like to watch the original versions of shows as well as the remakes. Holly wood does botch things up quite often, especially in more recent decades.

I like crime shows, real crime histories, and sometimes fictional stories. I liked watching Narcos seasons 1 and 2, the story of Pablo Escobar. I recall hearing about parts of that story as they happened, the parts which made international news.

Jimmy Hoffa is said to have relied upon "the Irishman" for his personal protection, a man named Frank Sheeran. Sheeran was mentored by the Buffalino crime family in Pennsylvania. Though not Italian and therefore unable to become a "made member" of the mafia, he was a trusted, loyal, and effective associate of the family. Hoffa worked with the mafia, but considered himself independent of them. He didn't consider himself subordinate to them. Hoffa went to prison for a short stint, and after he got out he wanted to be head of the union again. The mob didn't want this.

Shortly before he died Sheeran claimed he had been given the order to kill Hoffa. Sheeran reportedly considered Hoffa a close friend and really didn't want to do it, but if he had refused he would have been killed himself, and Hoffa still would have been killed. So he reluctantly carried out the hit. Hoffa disappeared from the parking lot of a diner where he was reportedly waiting to meet someone. Sheeran claims that he picked up Hoffa from that parking lot and they went to a house not far away. When they entered the house he put two bullets in the back of his head. He says the body was cremated.

That has the ring of truth to me. Mafia guys will tell you that if a member is going to be whacked, it is usually someone he trusts who is sent to do the job. Everything is normal and friendly right up until the moment. They would want to send Sheeran to do it since Hoffa would feel completely safe, and would never see it coming.

Sheeran's lawyer wrote a book after Sheeran's death called "I Heard You Paint Houses". That phrase is said to mean you kill people. The blood splatters on the walls of the room where you kill someone, "painting" the walls. Criminal euphemisms are sometimes interesting. Sheeran admitted the story to him before he died. He had been a suspect in the killing, but there was never evidence to convict him.

Black Dahlia; I only know the story that the severed body was found. I have never heard any explanation which was backed up by fact, only speculations. To me, the gruesome injury to her body indicates an intense anger by her killer. I don't think that mystery will ever be solved.

My sister gave me some DVDs recently and I saw a good movie called The Killing Jar. It all takes place in a diner. Michael Madsen gives a great performance, and it has a nice mystery. You might enjoy it if you can find it.

That is interesting about Jimmy Hoffa - it seems a pretty likely scenario. With regard to "House of Cards" you wont need any real knowledge of our political system - it's very well written and if you follow the dialogue you will follow the plot very well. Basically it is about Francis Urquhart - a chief whip (a guy who makes sure all the MP's turn up to vote and vote as they are told to) who has been promised a higher office by the Prime Minister after his re-election - the promise is not honoured and this sends Urquhart into a quiet rage which sees him decide (with a little whispering in his ear from his wife) to climb the greasy pole by whatever means necessary. It is a good long series in three parts - all of which are equally good. To me, the American version fell down heavily on overstated violence to prove how ruthless Frank was from virtually the first scene when he killed the dog(never a good thing to show me!) and then his wife just had to get in on the act - and as soon as that happened the outcome was telegraphed and I lost interest immediately. In the British version the role of the wife is much more subtle. I have read so much about "The Black Dahlia" and it continues to fascinate me - I have the latest book on it "Black Dahlia, Red Rose" but I haven't read it yet !! What I have read suggests that she had a uterine malformation which prevented her from having normal relations with men - and as her body had a large hole carved in that area is seems it was likely true. I agree that it seems like a rage killing - and if she had led the wrong guy on then it's likely his anger at not being able to consummate what he considered their agreement would result in what happened. She was known to be - if not a part time prostitute - then certainly a user of men. "The Killing Jar" sounds interesting - it may be difficult to find though because it seems to be a straight to video film.

Hey, I am house and dog sitting for my oldest sister for a few days. My schedule is really messed up right now and I have not been on the computer very much.

I've made a mental note about House of Cards. I will watch the British version. I actually stopped watching the American version after a few seasons. Hollywood cannot help itself. Once they get an audience for a show they begin to use it as a vehicle for pushing political positions, or for denigrating people they don't agree with.

That is interesting about the Black Dahlia. And it is very sad. She was an attractive woman, I mean she had a pretty face. She must have had a hard life growing up. Women who become prostitutes usually have not had it easy. And with her medical condition as it was...I have to wonder what the guy thought when she told him she couldn't do it in the normal fashion. Did he think that she was really a guy who had parts removed? If he thought that, if he thought he had been tricked into kissing and groping a guy, he could have become very angry indeed. A late friend of mine told me he was fooled once by a trans-sexual back in the 1960s. He reacted violently when the truth was revealed, tossing 'her' against the wall and punching 'her' when she bounced off. My friend was a very rough customer in those days. But I would venture that a majority of men, if they had been fooled into making out with a female impersonator, would not handle it well.

And in 1947 people were more conservative than in the 1960s. Homosexuality was a criminal offense in the US at that time. It was considered a perversion and a crime. So imagine if the guy thought that Elizabeth Short was a guy who'd had his genitals removed in order to pass as a girl, had failed to inform him of this, and had tricked him into getting friendly with him. Rage.

But I just read a little bit about the murder scene, and rage doesn't explain the weird stuff done to the body. It had been drained of blood and then washed....WASHED. It was posed with hands over head, elbows bent at right angles, legs spread apart. The intestines were placed underneath the buttocks. Her face was cut with a "Glasgow smile", from corners of the mouth to the ears. And flesh cut away in different areas.

It sounds like a pretty demented individual killed her. Perhaps the rage scenario did take place, but then the sick individual did that other stuff in accordance with his twisted desires. I don't know. I find it very hard to imagine what would go through the mind of someone who could do that stuff to someone.

Let me know what you find out, and if you come up with any other theories about it.

That's done it - I'll have to read the book !! You have actually offered a theory I have never heard before - about the possibility of her being a transgender person. That has never occurred to me. I usually believe what criminology books state as the scenario - but back then would they have considered it too indecent to reveal the true results of her autopsy, would they have even understood them? It would certainly explain the maniacal rage that went into that killing - but why wash the body? Maybe he was forensically aware and was simply getting rid of any trace of himself. It's hard to understand where that level of insanity comes from - I suppose it has to originate in some malfunction of the brain and I suppose that is why so many countries are abolishing the death penalty. I can see what they are saying - that the individual must be suffering from some kind of mental aberration - but it doesn't change the fact that it will never be safe to release them and what is worse - life behind bars or a merciful death. As a matter of related interest- they are just on the verge of passing a new law in this country whereby killers cannot be released by the parole board if they have refused to reveal the whereabouts of the bodies of their victims. I am amazed that this law is only coming into force now - why hasn't it always been in force? and why are they even being released anyway. As you probably know we are currently in the midst of a new Conservative Leader being chosen who will be Prime Minister - it is down to the last two - and Boris Johnson (our own nearest version of Trump!!) is promising that he will make sure that criminals serve all of their sentences - not just half - but what is actually handed down in court. Isn't is ridiculous that that is the case anyway - what is the point of saying 10 and meaning 5 - I think it is just to satisfy the public - but the public are getting a lot wiser now. It is accepted that if you plead guilty that is an automatic third off your sentence - how crazy is that? Pat the dog for me !!

My first thought was that because she told him she couldn't have vaginal sex, the guy might have assumed that she wasn't a real woman, but a transvestite. I doubt she was a transgender person. I am not certain, but I don't think doctors were doing sex reassignment surgeries in the 40s. But they did sometimes try to assign a sex at birth in cases where it was indeterminate, as in intersex or hermaphrodites. Was something like that done to Elizabeth Short at birth? If so, did they seal or destroy the records? Anyway, my first thought was it could have been a "normal" male, or perhaps a sociopath, who became enraged because he thought a homosexual male tricked him into making out with him.

But then reading about the murder scene I thought, 'this was not a normal male'. A sociopath has learned to over ride any guilt about his crimes and can be just as brutal as a psychopath (who lacks empathy from birth). He could make the smiley face cuts without compunction. He could dismember the body. The washing could have been to remove forensic evidence. He wouldn't want to leave hand prints for example. Although they are not definitive proof of one individual, they could certainly be used to rule out other people, and NOT rule out the killer. The posing of the body ought to offer some clues, but someone better skilled and educated in criminology and profiling would have to decipher those. The positioning of the legs spread apart might mean 'she is a whore'. That would fit with his anger at her. The various wounds probably have significance, though some of them might just be the result of his rage, they could be indiscriminate cuts.

It could have nothing to do with her medical condition. She might have initially been friendly, hoping to make some easy money with him. But suppose she picked up that this guy is not right. Maybe she sensed that he was a violent man, or was a bit on the crazy side, and she didn't feel safe. So at that point she might try to make an excuse to leave. Her facial expressions would betray her feelings, her mistrust of him, her fear of him. That could have been enough to set him off if he were an unstable and violent person by nature.

"What's wrong?! I'm not good enough for you, is that it? First you tease me and now you're just going to walk away?" I can picture that scene very clearly. She would be terrified and try to make a dash for the door.

I don't know. This case has fascinated people since it happened because it was so bizarre, so gruesome, and since nobody was ever caught and tried for the crime.

@strangebedfellows said:

It's hard to understand where that level of insanity comes from - I suppose it has to originate in some malfunction of the brain and I suppose that is why so many countries are abolishing the death penalty. I can see what they are saying - that the individual must be suffering from some kind of mental aberration - but it doesn't change the fact that it will never be safe to release them and what is worse - life behind bars or a merciful death. As a matter of related interest- they are just on the verge of passing a new law in this country whereby killers cannot be released by the parole board if they have refused to reveal the whereabouts of the bodies of their victims. I am amazed that this law is only coming into force now - why hasn't it always been in force? and why are they even being released anyway. As you probably know we are currently in the midst of a new Conservative Leader being chosen who will be Prime Minister - it is down to the last two - and Boris Johnson (our own nearest version of Trump!!) is promising that he will make sure that criminals serve all of their sentences - not just half - but what is actually handed down in court. Isn't is ridiculous that that is the case anyway - what is the point of saying 10 and meaning 5 - I think it is just to satisfy the public - but the public are getting a lot wiser now. It is accepted that if you plead guilty that is an automatic third off your sentence - how crazy is that? Pat the dog for me !!

They are definitely not mentally well adjusted people, that is for sure. Some of them are truly out of touch with the real world. The Son of Sam killer who terrorized New York City for a time wasn't upset about being arrested. He was smiling and happy. He wasn't acting either. I believe he was schizophrenic. Most such people are not violent at all. I recall one I used to fill prescriptions for who sometimes would stop taking his medications. He came in the store one day and told me in all sincerity, and in a very polite manner, that he was aware that I had been using the bathroom inside of his leg, that it smelled bad, and he wanted me to stop doing that. I asked him about his medicine and he told me it smelled bad and he decided to stop taking it. He had told me what he wanted to say and he left. I called his doctor of course and a social worker who knows and works with him called me and said she had him back on his meds again. He was a nice fellow, but he was out of touch with reality.
Someone like that, or like the Son of Sam killer, may not be aware that they have done something wrong. It would be a crime to treat them the same way we treat a person who is well aware that what they are doing is against the law, that it is wrong to torture and murder people, etc.

We must make a clear distinction between someone who knows that what they did was wrong, and those who lack that awareness.

We must also never equate the two. Someone who does horrible things to the corpse may have plenty of things wrong with him, but if he knew it was wrong to do it, if he tried to avoid being caught, and so on, then he should not be judged "not guilty by reason of insanity". If that element is present, if the killer had the awareness that he or she was breaking the law, that it was morally and legally wrong to do it, then they shouldn't be allowed to be treated like the schizophrenic who doesn't understand they did something wrong.

Perhaps there should be other classifications, other distinctions to be made. I will leave that to the psychiatrists and lawyers to figure out. As you said, they cannot be allowed to roam free in society. Whether they don't know right from wrong, or they have a compulsion they cannot control, or they have some other disorder of the mind which predisposes them to do horrible violent acts, they must be locked away.