Monthly Archives: March 2016

Why the Sentence?

26 Saturday Mar 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

As Rind et al. noted, in defining “what is abuse ” and “who is a child,” according to CSA victimolgists, “CSA came to include any kind of sexual encounter between a minor under eighteen and someone five or more years older,” including “episodes of mature adolescents willingly participating in sex with older teens or adults.” So a 6’3″, 220 lb. biological man and football star was a “child” who was and is and always will be a “victim” of CSA for willingly participating in sex with Abigail Simon. And that’s assuming she’s lying and that he didn’t rape and terrorize her.

And CSA victimologists “maintained that all these encounters were traumatizing, using dramatic analogies such as slavery, head-on car crashes, being mauled by a dog, and torture to convey their belief about CSA’s nature.” So Abigail’s “victim,” assuming she’s lying, was not only traumatized, “scarred for life” by having sex with an adult female, but his traumatization and suffering were analagous or at least comparable to “slavery, head-on car crashes, being mauled by a dog, and torture,” and other travails and ordeals that are profoundly and genuinely traumatizing, such as war, terrorism, degradation and abuse and torture in jails and prisons and concentration camps, home invasions, abductions, false imprisonment, armed robberies, aggravated assaults, violent rapes and gang-rapes, sadistic, brutal, vicious, depraved.

Ironically, if anyone was and is a victim, a real victim, in this affair, if anyone was and is traumatized, in reality as opposed to the fantasies of CSA victimologists, it was and is Abigail. A victim of her “victim” if she’s telling the truth, wholly or largely, and by incarceration, first in jail and then in prison, even if she’s lying. And also by her arrest, prosecution, trial, sentencing, and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution, whether or not her story is truthful.

Unlike her “victim,” she’ll be traumatized,” devastated, and “scarred for life.”

Why She was/is Demonized, and Her Life Destroyed

23 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, age of consent, CSA victimology, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The imprimatur and espousal of such lies and idiocies and fantasies and absurdities (as described by Carol Tavris, Rind et al., and Harris Mirkin) by our ruling elites and governing-classes explain why Abigail Simon was charged with a felony that carried a maximum sentence of 25-years to life in prison, convicted at trial, and sentenced to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution.

First, Tavris: In Michigan, in respect to adult-adolescent sex, the magical age is 16 unless the adult is in a position of authority over the “minor.” So Abigail’s “victim,” being 15, had “no sexual feelings of any kind” and was “incapable of wishing to have sexual relations.” Ergo, his “sexual relations” with Abigail were “oppressive, traumatic, and coerced.” And so, too, were the hundreds of  emails and text-messages they exchanged, even if he was the initiator and aggressor, with Abigail reacting to his fussilade of emails and text-messages rather than vice-versa to satiate and gratify and placate him, masturbating at his compuer or in a restroon at school or wherever,  so he wouldn’t harass her in person and implore her for sex or even assault and molest her. And, obviously, he was aroused by and enjoyed the sex and messages, loving and lascivious, feelings which are inconceivable, according to the surreal and psychotic theories of CSA victimologists, and thus a result of “false consciousness,” since he had “no sexual feeling of any kind” and was “incapable of wishing to have sexual relations” as he initiated or assented to sex with Abigail and masturbated, daily, who know how many times, whether or not he was reading her emails and text-messages.

And that’s assuming she’s lying and that he didn’t rape and bully and terrorize and manipulae her. But even if he was the aggressor and initiatory, which is more than likely and entirely plausible, even if he raped and bullied and terrorized and manipulated her, even if he “controlled her life” by violence and intimidation or threats of violence and intimidation, explicit and implicit, real or imagined, CSA victimogists and the millions of people they’re inculcated would still argue and believe that he had “no sexual feelings of any kind” and was “incapable of wishing to have sexual relations” with the woman he sexually assaulted, physically, and otherwise assailed and harassed with a fusillade of hundreds of salacious emails and text messages to which she responded to indulge his fantasies and satiate his desires, onanistically, rather than physically, by words rather than her body.

Every day, every month, every year, for decades, how many rapes and gang-rapes are committed by biological man under age 16 in the US and worldwide in all nations and on all continents? The answer is millions. But according to CSA victimologists,, psychotics who live in a fantasy world, these rapists have “no sexual feelings of any kind” and are “incapable of wishing to have sexual relations”! And, for some CSA victimolgists, this is even true of 16- and 17-year-olds!

Grotesque, Howling, Psychotic Nonsense

22 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, age of consent, CSA victimology, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Unlike the scientific, apolitical, non-ideological Rind et al. study, Harris Mirkin’s notorious article (for which he almost lost his job at the University of Missouri-Kansas City) is full of leftist nonsense, fashionable and unfashionable. Nevertheless, surprisingly for a leftist, he accurately describes the bizarre and pernicious dogmas of CSA victimologists:

In the same way as adolescents are merged with little children, all sexual activity is equated with violent or coerced activity. Issues of control in the sexual area are treated differently from those in other areas. Pubescents and adolescents are usually thought of as hard to control, and attempts to mold their behavior and initiate them into legal and enjoyable adult activities are considered valuable. However, in the sexual area these assumptions are reversed. It is asserted that they are easily controlled, and they are conceptualized as little children who have no sexual desire of their own and can only be passive victims. According to the dominant formulas the youth are always seduced. They are never considered partners or initiators or willing participants even if they are the hustlers.

It is argued that they cannot give consent, that they cannot enjoy sex even if they think that they do, and that they suffer physical and psychological harm even if they are not aware of it. Contradictory symptoms (like heightened or reduced sexual desire) are attributed to childhood sexual experiences. All future evils will be attributed to past experiences of child abuse, while all future good things that are done will be attributed to overcoming the effects of child abuse, incest, or molestations…Moreover, harmful effects that come from social attitudes toward intergenerational sex are confounded with harmful effects that come from the acts themselves. (Harris Mirkin, “The Patterns of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia,” ipecweb/Library, 6-6-2003, p. 9.)

What he means, I assume, is that “harmful effects” that putatively “come from the acts themselves” actually “come from social attitudes toward intergenerational sex,” i.e., the dogmas of CSA victimology that he describes in the quoted paragraphs.

CSA Victimology: Delusional, Ludicrous, Malignant

21 Monday Mar 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, age of consent, CSA victimology, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Carol Tavris briefly summarizes, satirically with the phrase “we all know,” a dogma of the “child sexual abuse industry”: “Teenagers, whom we all know have no sexual feelings of any kind until they are 16 (at which time they magically become mature adults) are incapable of wishing to have sexual relations, so if they do have sexual relations before age 16, said relations must be oppressive, traumatic, and coerced.” (Carol Tavris, “The Uproar Over Sexual Abuse Research and its Findings,” Society, May/June 2000, p. 15.)

Tavris is wrong about one detail. For most CSA victimologists, the magical age is now 18 and was so when she wrote this in the year 2000. To quote Rind et al. in The Skeptical Inquirer

…Who is a “child”? CSA came to include any kind of sexual encounter between a minor under age eighteen and someone five or more years older. And what is “abuse”? Victimologists began with rape and incest, but then stretched definitions of CSA to include non-contact episodes (e.g., flashing), sex between children of differing ages, and episodes of mature adolescents willingly participating in sex with older teens or adults. Yet they maintained that all these encounters were traumatizing, using dramatic analogies such as slavery, head-on car crashes, being mauled by a dog, and torture to convey their belief about CSA’s nature.(“The Condemned Meta-Analysis on Child Sexual Abuse: Good Science and Long-Overdue Skepticism,” The Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 2001, 68-72.)

CSA victimologists and those they’ve inculcated believe that “(a) CSA causes harm, (b) the harm is pervasive in the population of persons with a history of CSA, (c) this harm is likely to be intense, and (d) CSA is an equivalent experience for boys and girls in terms of its widespread and intensely negative effects (emphasis added).The media has created “the image that CSA produces intensely negative effects for all its victims” and “some have attempted to explain much or all of adult psychopathology as a consequence of CSA.”  (Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman, and Philip Tromovitch, “A Meta-Analytic of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” Psychological Bulletin, 1998, Vol. 124, p. 22.)

For debunking such idiocies in their infamous study, for telling the truth and stating the facts and noting the obvious and living in the real world, Rind et al. were unanimously condemned by the United States Congress. Yes, there was not one dissenter, not one heretic! Differentiating between pubescents under age 18 and young children and between males and females -e.g., contrasting the incestual rape of a 5-year-old girl with “the willing sexual involvement of a mature 15-year-old adolescent boy with an unrelated adult…(Rind, p. 23.)”- was “perhaps the researchers most inflammatory finding (Tavris).”

CSA victimologists on the right as well as the left were outraged by their contention that biological men under age 18 are innately different from adolescent girls and thus far more likely to react positively to sexual encounters with adults of both sexes -with Dr. Laura and her ilk viewing this distinction as insidiously condoning the pervasive abuse and exploitation of underage male teenagers by adult homosexuals.

Cassandra: What if She had Reported the Sexual Assault?

08 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Cassandra, Uncategorized, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall: a life-sentence with no chance for surcease because of “overcaring and naivete” and bad judgement and misguided compassion for a biological man and criminal who harassed and molested and ultimately raped her. But even to condemn and rebuke her for bad judgement, both in not reporting the crime and then assenting to sex with the criminal who forced himself on her, is excessively harsh and “judgemental,” given the madness of a system ruled by fanatical CSA victimologists, inquisitorial quasi-religious dogmatists, and those they’ve converted or browbeat into silence and nonresistance: SVU detectives, prosecutors, judges, politicians, journalists, etc.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that she reported the crime to police. If so, her tormentor and assailant would have claimed that she was the initiator or a willing participant. And if they and the D.A. believed him, a “child,” rather than her, the adult -in such cases, usually I would presume, the imperative to “believe the child” overrides the imperative to “believe the woman”- she would have been charged with “sexual assault” for initiating or consenting to a single act of intercourse with a “child.” And if she plead “not guilty” and went to trial to tell her story to a “jury of her peers,” like Abigail Simon, she probably would have been convicted, like Abigail, and sentenced to more or far more time in prison than she received under a plea bargain. And, of course, all the other draconian and iniquitous and Orwellian penalties..

Cassandra: Guilty of “Sexual Assault” Because She Was Sexually Assaulted

08 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Cassandra, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

The ironies are priceless. To those of us who respect the literal and objective meaning of words and write and speak accordingly, “sexual assault” connotes the use or threat of force or violence to secure the compliance of a victim, whether an adult or adolescent “minor,” or the rape and/or molestation of a prepubertal child too young and innocent to consent in a meaningful and comprehending sense. In this case, factually as opposed to legally, the only assaults were committed by the victim and the only victim of assault was Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall. And she goes to prison for “second-degree sexual assault of a child.” And the predator who molested and then raped her is turned into a “victim” of “sexual assault,” “victimized” and “abused” in theory and under the law by initiating and enjoying post-rape sex-acts with the woman he sexually-assaulted.

Poisoned by CSA victimologists, virtually all of whom are feminists and left-liberal” progressives, and also MRAs, the misogynist vermin of the soi-disant “men’s movement,” millions would even call her a “rapist” -a “rapist” for assenting to sex with a criminal and biological man who initiated the “affair” by forcing himself on her in a relationship that, in regard to her actions and feelings, wasn’t even “sexually-motivated”- and define the young man and criminal who raped her as a “victim of rape” for penetrating her in subsequent acts that he initiated and rapturously enjoyed.

Cassandra’s “Victim”: Man and “Child”

06 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by in age of consent, Cassandra, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

In the Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall travesty, incongruously, the delinquent and criminal was old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to rape his teacher and also to molest her at school, how many times I don’t know, apparently pinning her against a wall or her desk and the like and kissing her against her will on at least a few occasions, and possibly mature enough to have been charged and punished as an adult had she reported the sexual assault to police, according to her lawyer. But he was too young and immature to willingly and knowingly initiate and enjoy subsequent acts of intercourse and whatever else with the woman he sexually assaulted. Under the law, he knew what he was doing, legally and morally, when he forced himself on her but not when he initiated sex with her thereafter. He was a rapist and molester when his aggressions involved criminal force,, but a victim of “sexual assault” when his aggressions didn’t involve criminal force, i.e, when she foolishly acquiesced to subsequent acts of “intercourse” (including not only coition but also fellatio and other acts under Wisconsin law) and “sexual contact.” Legally, he was a man, an adult or quasi-adult, when he raped and molested Cassandra, but a “child,” fundamentally indistinguishable from prepubertal girls of 9 and 11 in the inability to knowingly and willingly consent to or initiate sex with an adult and and his putative corollary “traumatization, when he initiated and enjoyed acts of coitus and who knows what else during the intrigue that followed and, according to two psychologists, “manipulated” their “relationship.”

Are Biological Men Under Age 16 or Even 18 Too Young and Immature to Consent to or Initiate Sex with Adult Females?

04 Friday Mar 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, age of consent, Cassandra, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

In felonious liaisons in which the “victims” are the aggressors and initiators of their phantasmal “victimization, ” the “victimizers” consented to sex with their “victims” or, in some instances, acquiesced out of fear. The “victims” did not assent to sex with their “victimizers.” So in these intrigues, what CSA victimologists actually mean is not that biological men under age 16 or even 18 are too young and immature to consent to sex with adult females, willingly and knowingly. What they mean is that they’re too young and immature to willingly and knowingly crave and initiate sex with adult females.

Empirically as opposed to theoretically, the objective fact of young men under age 16 or 18 assenting to or initiating sex with adult women or adolescent girls of similar age proves that they know what they’re doing and why even if they’re oblivious and indifferent to possible negative consequences -which is also true of adults if to a lesser degree. Pubescent teenage males under statutory age willingly and knowingly assent to and initiate sex with adult females and teenage girls under statutory age for the same reasons they willingly and knowingly rape and sexually assault myriads of adult females and adolescent girls each years in the United States alone and untold millions on all 6 continents: because the sex is thrilling, gratifying, empowering. And with most rapists, because they’re violent, and brutal, sadistic, vicious, depraved, just like “adult” men age 18 and older.

Clearly, if they’re old and mature enough to form the mens rea and criminal intent to commit rapes and other violent/mala in se  felonies -and even to be “waived” into adult court in many cases given the nature of their crimes and criminal records- than they’re old and mature enough to consent to and initiate sex with adult females.If they know what they’re doing, legally and morally, when they rape adult women and underage adolescent girls, then they know what they’re doing when they consent to and initiate sex with adult females. Fundamentally, it’s that simple.

Incongruosly, under the law,  they’re charged with felonies when they rape adult females -and possibly even “waived” into adult court if they have histories of violence beginning at age 12 or 13 or 14 and 5 or 10 or 20 prior felony  convictions, and/or if the rapes are distinctly brutal, sadistic, vicious, depraved. But when they have sex with adult females, they’re viewed as not even partly culpable, even if they’re the aggressors, the predators, the initiators. And even if they confess to sexually harassing, molesting, and raping the woman, as in the Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall case.

“Rape” as “Nonconsensual Sex”

03 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by in age of consent, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Not even those who demonize such women as “rapists” believe they have penises with which to anally penetrate their mythical and theoretical “victims.” And, to my knowledge, no teachers have been accused and convicted of using violence/force or threats of same -e.g., weapons such as knives or guns or their superior size and strength- to compel their “victims” to engage in sex-acts “against their will,” e.g., to penetrate the women who “raped” them. If so, they’d be more infamous than Mary Letourneau.

So what do they mean when they call such women “rapists”? They mean that the sex is nonconsensual. Like prepubertal children, pubescent teenage males under age 16 or even 18 are now seen as too young and innocent to consent to sex in a meaningful and comprehending sense.

First, even if this were true, describing such women as “rapists,” or even “statutory rapists,” would still be absurd given the realities of penile-vaginal penetration.

Secondly, in many if not most of these “crimes,” the woman isn’t even guilty of seduction. Either the “victim” was the aggressor and initiator or their sexual union could be described as a mutual coming together. So not only is she not a “rapist,” which is true in all such liaisons; she isn’t even a “sexual predator,” another epithet used to brand such women as perverse and dangerous, irrespective of the facts and circumstances.

And given the nature of young men under age 18 who are absurdly defined as “children” or, far less often but even more ludicrously, “little boys,” it’s reasonable to assume that in many if not most of these affairs the “victims” are the aggressors, the initiators, the predators. So, in many if not most intrigues, the “victims” do not assent (i.e., appear to consent since, according to CSA victimologists, they’re too young to actually consent) to sex with their “victimizers.” The “victimizers” consent to sex with their “victims.” Or, in some if not many instances, acquiesce out of fear. The issue of consent or assent relates to the passive and receptive actor.

And, in  some instances, the “victims” are the rapists and molesters. I’m aware of at least 5 cases in which I know or suspect (as probable or possible) that the woman was raped and/or molested by the “child” and “victim” she “raped” and/or “sexually assaulted” by engaging or allegedly engaging in acts of factually consensual intercourse or “sexual contact.” The paramount irony is that in these cases -and who knows how many others of which I know little or nothing- the only rapes, accurately defined, were committed by the “victims” of “rape” and “sexual assault.” The women were raped, in fact, by the “victims” they “raped” in theory and by definition.

 

“Statutory Rape”

01 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, age of consent, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

In some news articles, in the story and/or headlines, an editor or reporter, apparently recognizing the absurdity of defining such intrigues as “rape” and the women as “rapists,” will instead use the term “statutory rape.” As I’ll explain, such usage is not as absurd as “rape” but absurd nonetheless.

It’s important to emphasize that adult men who penetrate, and often impregnate, young women under age 16 or 18 in love affairs and dalliances and “one-night stands” are not “rapists” either, objectively defined, since they’re not guilty of using violence/force or threats of same to compel the submission of their de jure “victims.” That’s why, in the pre-feminist/”gender-neutral”/ sexual egalitarian “dark ages,” the offense was defined and codified as “statutory rape,” typically if not universally -not as “sexual assault,” “aggravated sexual battery,” “child rape, et.al, which imply violence- and the offense only applied to men in most jurisdictions. The purpose of such laws was to preserve the chastity and virginity of young women under age 18 and prevent their impregnation. Biological men under age 18 or of whatever age don’t get pregnant and only the silliest and looniest of prudes are obsessed with preserving the chastity and virginity of teenage males.

The modifying “statutory” denotes an absence of violence/force or threats of same -i.e., it reveals that the coitus was factually (as opposed to legally) consensual- while “rape” signifies the reality of penile-vaginal penetration, an act which only males can perpetrate. Thus even to define acts of coitus between adult women and biological men under age 16 or 18 as “statutory rape” and the women as “statutory rapists” is objectively false, given the nature of intercourse and the inescapably differences in anatomy between males and females, and thus absurd.

The definitions that imply violence/force or overt threats of same and the equal and “gender-neutral” application of such laws to young men under age 16 or 17 or 18 are based on the feminist dogma that males and females of whatever age are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and the premise that sex between young men and women under statutory age and adults at least 4-5 years older is inherently coercive and non-consensual, even if the “victims” are the aggressors and initiators of their “victimization,”and thus always deeply traumatizing, irrespective of the facts and circumstances, and even more so if the adult is in a position of authority.

Thus while the generic age of consent if 16 in most states and 17 and 18 in all others, consensual sex between teachers and other adults in positions of authority and 18-years-olds is now a felony in most jurisdictions.