Monthly Archives: April 2016

Abigail to be Resentenced

23 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, appeal, CSA victimology, MRAs, "men's movement, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

woodtv.com, Dec. 2, 2015:

As for Simon, she is appealing her conviction on several counts. She argues her attorney was ineffective, and the judge gave improper jury instructions that undercut her defense that claimed she was the victim.

The Court of Appeals has not announced whether it will hear Simon’s appeal, however both her her attorney and the Kent County prosecutor’s office say the case should come back to Kent County Court for a sentencing hearing.

In July, the Michigan Supreme Court threw out mandatory sentencing guidelines, ruling judges can use them as a guide but are not bound by them. Since then a number of cases have been sent back to the trial courts for resentencing.

In Simon’s case, the Kent County Prosecutor’s Office writes that the “case should go back too the Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence but for the essentially mandatory sentencing guidelines.”

Simon’s attorney argues the guidelines were set higher that they should have been under the Supreme Court ruling. Circuit Court judge Paul Sullivan is free to keep the current sentence, or make it shorter or longer.

In a sane and just and rational country, Abigail would not have even been charged with a crime but simply punished, non-criminally, by dismissal and revocation of her license and expulsion from the profession. Or, at worst, charged with a misdemeanor and, if convicted, sentenced to 3-6 months of probation with perhaps 50-100 hours of “community service.” And perhaps also fined modestly. And that’s assuming she’s lying about her “victim” forcing himself on her.

But America is sui generis in its lunacy and hysteria over adult women having sex with biological men under statutory age -especially those in positions of authority even if their authority is not misused to coerce and manipulate their “victims.” Abstractly, in theory and by definition, the authority is presumed to be coercive and manipulative -irrespective of who did what to whom, sexually and non-sexually, and why- and implicitly coercive and manipulative even if the “victim” was the aggressor who initiated his theoretical and phantasmal “victimization,” i.e., the sex he craved, initiated, and enjoyed far more than his de jure “victimizer.” And even if he initiated, sustained, and controlled the intrigue by a scheme of coercion and manipulation. Or even by “sexual assault,” rape and/or molestation, e.g., the “victims” and “crimes” of Melissa Bittner and Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall.

And, though the SC ruling was in July of 2015, I assume she has not been resentenced. Given her 7-weeks in jail before sentencing, she’s now been enslaved for almost a year and a half and might have to wait a few months longer, at least, to find out how many more years she’ll be imprisoned.

And when she’s resentenced, say in 2-3 months, I’m sure the judge won’t let her off with “time-served.” Imagine the reaction if he did so! The fusillade of excoriation, calumny, virulence, hate-mail, death-threats, perhaps even assaults and vandalism. The condemnation from the ruling elites and governing-classes, CSA victimologists, newspapers editorials, pundits, politicians, the national media and it’s “talking-heads,” MRAs, etc. So even though he appears not to be a CSA victimologist, given some of his comments at sentencing, I fear he’s too craven to defy the mob and elites and choose sanity and equity over politics and ideology.

Thus, almost surely, a sentence of “only “4 or 5 or 6 years in prison, hopefully with “time-served,” though I doubt it, or perhaps 4-8 years with a chance for parole after “only” 4 or 6 years. If she’s given 6 years, for example, she’ll be enslaved for almost as long as under the initial sentence of 8-25 years, assuming she would have been released after “only” 8 years. And if given 4-8 and denied parole after 4 or 6 years, she’ll be enslaved almost as long or longer than under the first sentence, assuming once again that she’d have been released after 8 years.

And conceivably longer than 6 years if he reads a copy of the lawsuit or attends a hearing and believes all or most of the allegations. During sentencing in January 2015, he concluded that she was not a “predator” who was likely to “re-offend.  Given the lawsuit and it’s allegations (lies, distortions, half-truths, exaggerations?), he might change his mind and view her as a “predator” who is likely to “re-offend,” resulting in an even more draconian sentence. And so, too, if he submits to the demands of CSA victimologists, MRAs, and the tens of millions of people they’ve brainwashed, provoking in millions a frenzy of hatred and “blood lust” for vengeance.

And the resentencing, whatever his ruling, won’t vacate or lessen any of the extra/post-incarceration penalties.

 

Abigail is Sued by Her “Victim”

22 Friday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The insanity continues. The State of Michigan and it’s laws and courts and judges and lawyers simply can’t torture and torment this harmless woman enough, a woman who claims that the “victim” who is now an adult and is suing her was the aggressor in their intrigue and forced himself on her. For his mother, hysterical and vindictive, who probably initiated the lawsuit after finding out that Abigail would be re-sentenced due to a Michigan Supreme Court ruling, years in prison, at least, and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution, is not vengeance and punishment enough. I quote from an online article entitled “Victim Sues Abigail Simon, Diocese of GR,” Dec. 2, 2015, that includes a large photo of the mugshot that is featured in Michigan’s and national sex offender registries:

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -The victim of Abigail Simon has filed a lawsuit against his former tutor, the Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapid Catholic Schools and three staff members…The lawsuit, filed in Kent County 17th Circuit Court Nov. 20, accuses Simon of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress…The victim, who is not being named because he is the victim of a sex crime, also claims in his lawsuit that in February 2013 Abigail Simon “also engaged in inappropriate sexual and physical contact with other male students at Catholic Central and/or Grand Rapids West Catholic High School.”…The suit claims that the teachers and diocese knew of Simon’s sexual behavior toward underage male students in early 2013 and no one took action to stop the behavior. (woodtv.com/2015/12/02.)

“Battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress” for transporting a biological man and volcano of testosterone to sexual paradise in a factually consensual relationship that the definitional “victim” probably initiated, and that’s assuming she’s lying about his raping and terrorizing her. “Battery” denotes violence. If there was any violence, literally defined, in this relationship, it was committed by the “victim” against Abigail if she’s telling the truth about his being the aggressor in their intrigue and forcing himself on her.

Unsurprisingly, the article offers no specific and concrete facts as to exactly what is meant by “inappropriate sexual and physical contact with other male students” and “Simon’s sexual behavior toward underage male students” -but this vagueness and refusal to give us details implies that she had affairs and engaged in acts of coitus and fellatio and who knows what else with other male students at two different high schools.

If most or all of this is true, whatever it means exactly, it surely would have been discovered in full or largely during the investigation of her liaison with the football star.The SVU detectives and prosecutors must have interviewed dozens of students and teachers and other people at length and perused all of Abigail’s emails and text-messages during an exhaustive and thorough investigation.

If most or all of this is true, she would have been charged with who knows how many more felonies against who knows how many more “victims,” and there would have been dozens of witnesses to corroborate the accusations of the “victims.” Once again, no facts, concrete and specific much less thoroughness, from the media. But if she had engaged in acts of coitus and fellatio or even kissing and the fondling of genitals and breasts while fully clothed and other acts of “sexual contact” as opposed to “intercourse,” she would have been charged with who knows how many “counts” of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct” against who knows how many more “underage male students.”

And if she had even tried to seduce or initiate sex with other male students, or even engaged in explicit sexual banter and flirting at school and/or initiated and responded to texts and emails that were erotic or suggestive in nature with other male students, she would have been charged with who knows how many counts of “accosting a minor for immoral purposes,” a felony under Michigan law, against who knows how many “victims.”

Given all this evidence, all these “victims” and other witnesses, she obviously would not have rejected many or even one plea-bargain. She would have had no choice but to plead guilty. There would have been no trial.

If I had been a Juror at Abigail’s Trial

20 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, CSA victimology, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

If I had been in the “jury pool,” and had answered the questions of the prosecutors and defense attorneys honestly, there’s absolutely no chance that I would have been one of the 12 people chosen to decide Abigail Simon’s fate. But let’s assume that I lied, convincingly and astutely, to deceive the prosecutors, and was one of the 12 jurors.

If so, even if after hearing all the evidence I was 100% certain that Abigail was lying about everything, I would still have voted “not guilty” on all counts as a defiant and rational act of nullification, resulting in a “hung jury,” to protest the insane and odious laws under which she was arrested and prosecuted, convicted at trial, and sentenced to  8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution.

And to protest the zeitgeist that is culpable for these draconian, irrational, gratuitous, Kafkaesque laws: the unprecedented mass-psychosis and hysteria and “moral panic” and witch-hunt that began in 1997 with the burning and lynching, metaphorically, of Mary Letourneau, transformed by the media into the most hated and notorious distaff sex criminal in American history, and provoked the demonization and witch-burning of Abigail Simon almost two decades later: a corollary of the fantasies and fanaticism of CSA victimologists, their myrmidons and votaries in the mainstream media, and the tens of millions of people they’ve browbeat and indoctrinated, including those with the power to destroy the lives of innocuous and often innocent men and women who’ve never committed a violent or malum in se crime in their lives and almost surely never will and are not a ” threat to society” or to anyone: politicians, police, prosecutors, judges, jurors.

First, at the onset of deliberations, I would have shocked and enraged all or most of the other 11 jurors by stating that I would vote “not guilty” on all charges for the reasons above and that I would not change my mind no matter what any of them said since my decision was based on equity and altruism and not the evidence and testimony.

Nevertheless, knowing my efforts would be futile, I would have tried to persuade them to free Abigail by voting “not guilty” on all charges by invoking the presumption of innocence and the standard of “proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

I would have reminded them, repeatedly and emphatically, that in respect to the “he-said/she-said” testimony, the only certainty was that the “child” was a liar who committed perjury either at trial or when he testified under oath at a pretrial hearing that he was not only the aggressor in their intrigue but also forced himself on Abigail..

And I would have argued that the hundreds of emails and texts messages they exchanged were actually more exculpatory than inculpatory. They made her story more rather than less credible..See my post on why she rejected the plea bargain. Perhaps because she was telling the truth if not as a whole then largely and essentially.

And I would have argued, doggedly and forcefully, that this reality, combined with Abigail’s testimony as to why and how she responded to his fusillade of emails and text messages -and who knows what else I would have heard if a juror at her trial?- should be construed as a “reasonable doubt.”

And I would have stared at each juror, intensely and menacingly, my eyes like lasers, and asked them if a woman like Abigail, even if guilty, deserved to be sentenced to at least 8-25 years in prison and perhaps 25-years to life and enslaved for at least 8-years if not much longer in a hellish prison and then subjected to a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution.

Almost surely, I would not have succeeded in convincing even one or two of my “fellow jurors” that Abigail should be acquitted on all counts because she was not “proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” much less that they should join me in a defiant act of jury nullification.  She would not have been exonerated. But she would not have been convicted, not with me as a juror, and I would have lived the rest of my life knowing that I was not one of 12 jurors who destroyed the life of a harmless and perhaps innocent women. Alas, she would have been tried again, almost surely convicted, and sentenced to at least 8-25 year in prison and all the other extra/post-incarceration punishments. But at least I would have been in no way responsible.

And, surely, I would have been interviewed, by a few or at least one reporter, so I could have explained, in response to their questions, incredulous and acrimonious, why I voted “not guilty.” And, hopefully, they would have quoted me at length, accurately, though I doubt it. I would have been excoriated, subjected to a barrage of hate mail and death threats, possibly even a victim of assault and/or vandalism, if my identity was disclosed. But I would have been proud of myself for having the sanity and courage to resist this lunacy and mass-hysteria, so proud.

Paid For His Pleasure

17 Sunday Apr 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, CSA victimology, lawsuit, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

First, he gets to have sex with an adult woman, attractive and desirable (most who don’t hate her would even say pretty, including me) if not ravishing and beautiful like Debra Lafave and Pamela Rogers and Mary Letourneau, acts of coitus and fellatio(?) that he enjoyed far more than she did if their intrigue was factually as opposed to legally consensual. And if he forced himself on her, his experience was still pleasurable, perhaps even more so, while her’s was that of pain and fright, perhaps even terror, and debasement.

And even if she’s lying about his raping and terrorizing her, it’s just as likely as not if not more likely that she’s telling the truth about his being the aggressor. And now he wants to get paid for his pleasure, compensated for sex that he enjoyed, obviously far more than she did, whatever occurred exactly, and probably initiated.

And if she’s telling the truth about his raping her and controlling her life by threats and intimidation, explicit and implicit, then he’s suing as a “victim” of the woman he victimized.

Transformed By Testosterone: Child To Man

17 Sunday Apr 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

, , , ,

Writes David T. Courtwright:

Testosterone is why boys are born boys, and why they become men. In the absence of testosterone the fetus will develop into a female, nature’s “default” body plan…At the onset of puberty the testes flood the body with testosterone, raising blood levels to as much as twenty times those of women and prepubertal boys. This surge in testosterone in young men has anabolic effects, including increased muscle mass and bone density, as well as androgenic effects, including hairier bodies, deeper voices, and what is of concern here, increased libido, impulsiveness, and aggressiveness….We know that testosterone is causally related to these changes because its presence or absence is easily manipulated. Castrated human males, even castrated criminals, lose interest in sex and fighting. (Violent Land. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996, pp. 18-19.)

Note that by “men,” Courtwright means not only those age 18 and over but all pubescent males, transformed into men, profoundly and dramatically, by testosterone. And in regard to aggression, violence,  and criminality, sexual and non-sexual, his focus is on young men, particularly single males, in their teens and twenties. Males become men at puberty, not when they turn 18, which means nothing biologically. Manhood is biological, not an arbitrary legal distinction.

But under the laws of Michigan, the 6’3″, 220 lb. biological man of 15 and volcano of testosterone she transported to sexual paradise and whom she claims forced himself on her is defined as a “child” and “victim,” essentially the same in respect to sexual maturity and volition as prepubertal girls of 10 and 11 who are raped and/or molested by adult men.

Why She Must Contest This Lawsuit and Prevail in a Civil Trial

16 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, appeal, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Her grounds for appeal in respect to the “guilty” verdicts -three “counts” of first-degree criminal sexual misconduct” for alleging having sex with her “victim” on three occasions and one “count” of “enticing a minor for immoral purposes” for responding to his hundreds of emails and text messages- is that the judge’s instructions to the jury “undercut her defense -that she was the victim of rape and the teen was her attacker.” (woodtv.com, quoted in grrealist.blogspot.com, 2015/08)

At issue -two key points- jury instructions that Tieber says didn’t instruct the jury of 11 women and one man to consider the defense that Simon was a victim of rape and the sentence that imposes lifetime monitoring on Simon. A sentence her attorneys say is cruel and unusual.(woodtv.com, August 3, 2015)

Her only  chance, however remote, of having her convictions vacated on appeal and being acquitted of all charges in a new trial by a jury that believes her story and testimony is if she contests the lawsuit and all or most of its allegations and prevails in a civil trial.

If she pleads no contest to the lawsuit, thereby conceding that she was lying and that the young man didn’t force himself on her, her grounds for appeal will be obviated in respect to the judge’s instructions. There would be no reason to proceed with an appeal on this matter with the hope that her convictions would be negated and that she’d exonerated in a new trial, and no reason for a court to even hear her appeal on the judge’s instructions. The issue would be mute and impertinent, factually and legally.

And even if an appeals court ruled in her favor on lifetime electronic parole monitoring, agreeing with her lawyers that this penalty was “cruel and unusual,” her convictions would not be overturned and she would still be imprisoned for years if not over a decade and subjected to all the other extra/post-incarceration punishments, including registration for life as a uniquely deviant and dangerous criminal.

Because They’re Not “Pedophiles”

09 Saturday Apr 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

, , , ,

And such women must be defined and vilified as “pedophiles” and “child molesters” precisely because they are not pedophiles and child molesters.A pedophile is a man (pubescent teenage males under age 18 as well as adult men age 18 and older, heterosexual or homosexual) with a sexual fixation on and obsession with prepubescent children, girls or boys. To quote wikipedia: “Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 or younger.”

The imaginary “victims” of these women are not prepubescent children, boys or girls, “generally age 11 or younger.” They are pubescent teenage males ages 13-17. Ergo, the women are not “pedophiles.” End of story. Case closed. Nor are they “child molesters,” since their “victims” are not children, biologically as opposed to legally, but men, exactly the same as adults in respect to sexuality: compulsions, desires, fantasies, obsessions, fetishes, disorders, perversions, the penetration and impregnation of adult women and underage adolescent girls, “sexual harassment,” molestation, rape and gang-rape.

Moreover, I would argue that few if any women (including pubescent teenagers under statutory age) “experience a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 or younger.” I would argue that few if any females, adults or adolescents, who have “sexual contact” with prepubertal children, boys or girls, are pedophiles, certainly not in the sense that males are pedophiles. In fact, it’s debatable if a woman can  even be a pedophile under the APA definition.Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield summarize this definition:

…The DSM-IV American Psychiatric Association (1994) defines pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children, and requires that the fantasies,urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. It is therefore possible for an individual who meets these criteria to have never engaged in illegal sexual behaviors. At the same time, not all sex offenders against a minor (a prepubertal child, they should have written, M.K.) are pedophiles. All mental health professionals acting  in an expert witness capacity should know this distinction.(“Special Problems With Sexual Abuse Cases,” in Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony. Los Angeles: Law and Psychology Press, 1995, p. 1336.)

But, increasingly “pedophilia” is now defined, falsely and absurdly, as “sex between adults and children,”  including pubescent teenagers under age 18, and thus adults are defined and vilified as “pedophiles” for engaging in coitus or fellatio or “sexual contact” with biological men and women under age 18.

But to define an “adult” who turned 18 a week ago as a “pedophile” for having sex with a “child” who will turn 18 and thus be an “adult” in 13 days is so perverse and ludicrous that even CSA victimologists, the ideologues and fanatics culpable for the bogus and malign usage of this aspersive and incendiary term, are constrained to offer exceptions and qualifications, themselves arbitrary and irrational. Thus, according to the “experts,” an adult must be 4-5 years older than a “child” to be branded as a “pedophile.”

So under this false and absurd definition of “pedophile” and the arbitrary and ridiculous age-disparity of 4-5 years between the “victim” and adult perpetrator, an 18-year-old adult female who has sex with a biological of 15 is not a “pedophile” if the magical age-disparity is 4-years but a 19-year-old female who has sex with the same 15-year-old is a “pedophile.” And a 20-year-old female who has sex with a biological man of 15 is a “pedophile” is the magical age-disparity is 5-years but a 19-year-old female who has sex with the same 15-year-old is not a “pedophile.”

tAs noted, adult women of any age who have sex with pubescent teenagers, males or females, are not pedophiles, but adolescent males can be pedophiles. So a 23-year-old woman teacher is vilified as a “pedophile” for having a love affair or tryst or engaging in a single act of “sexual contact” with a biological man of 15 or 16 who might be a true pedophile with an exclusive or primary attraction to prepubescent children.

 

 

Because They Are Not “Rapists”

08 Friday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Paradoxically, these women must be defined and vilified as “rapists” precisely because they are not rapists in any sense and because women can’t rape anyone in the pure and literal sense of the word, and because none of them used violence/force or threats of same -weapons such as guns or knives or their superior size and strength- to compel the submission of “victims” who were often if not usually the aggressors and initiators and invariably willing participants. And because women acting alone, without male accomplices, or under the duress of violent males, commit far less than 1% of violent sexual assaults, the overwhelming majority of which are rapes and gang rapes committed by males in their teens and 20’s, including biological men under age 16 or even 18 who are absurdly defined as “children” and even “little boys” who are incapable of consenting to or willingly and knowingly initiating sex with adult females.who are 4-5 years older. This according to CSA victimologists and, consequently, the laws of all 50 states. But, incongruously, they’re old and mature enough to willingly and knowingly rape and molest adult women and underage adolescent girls, and possibly to be “waived” into adult court and punished accordingly, if they and/or their crimes are especially sadistic, brutal, vicious, depraved.

Women as “Rapists” and “Pedophiles”: What One Must Believe.

05 Tuesday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The sexes are innately different -not only physically, transparently and incontrovertibly, but also psychologically. And in respect to coitus between adults and young men and women under statutory age, adult females allowing biological men under age 16 or 18 to penetrate them in  de facto consensual relationships in which the “victims” are often if not usually the aggressors and initiators is crucially and profoundly different, physically and psychologically, from adult men penetrating and often impregnating underage adolescent girls.

But given the zeitgeist, emphasizing the obvious and stating the facts and telling the truth about this matter is now verboten and sacrilegious. And to demonize and vilify adult women who have sex with young men under age 16 or even 18 as “rapists” and “pedophiles” and “child molesters,” one must not only believe or affect to believe than men and women (including adolescents under statutory age who are absurdly defined as “children”) are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy; that “gender” (i.e., “masculine”/”feminine”) as opposed to sex (male/female) is an “artificial social construct”; that “gender” inequalities,  differences in qualities and behaviors* which have always been and are still defined as “manly”/”masculine” and “womanly”/”feminine” and thought of and recognized as distinctly male or female, statistically rather than absolutely, collectively rather than individually, are not in any sense or to any degree a corollary of purely sexual differentiation, i.e, the brain and body rather than society and culture and politics and history.

One must also ignore or deny or trivialize the importance of purely anatomical differences between the sexes: not only sex organs, penises and vaginas, and the resultant acts and sensations and consequences, e.g., penetration and impregnation, but also size, strength, muscularity, aggressiveness, a propensity for violence and criminality, etc. And in liaisons and trysts between adult women and young men under statutory age, the de jure “victim” is nearly always bigger and stronger or much bigger and stronger than the woman who “rapes” and/or “molests” him and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his theoretical victimization.

And one must also conflate pubescent teenagers under age 16 or even 18 with prepubescent children, thus viewing biological men under age 16 or even 18 as essentially the same as prepubertal girls of 11 and 12 in respect to adult/child sex and its pernicious and “traumatizing” consequences..

So for untold millions if not tens of millions of people in the United States and worldwide, Abigail Simon is a “rapist” and “pedophile” for allowing a 6’3″ 220 lb. biological man of 15 to penetrate her in a factually consensual relationship, assuming she’s lying, who deserved to be sentenced to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution. Or, at the least, comparable to a rapist and child molester, an “ephebophile”/”hebephile” and “statutory rapist” who deserves a sentence of 4-8 years in prison, mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” quasi-totalitarian post-prison “supervision,” and registration for life as a deviant and dangerous criminal.

And that’s assuming she’s lying about his forcing himself on her and “controlling her life” by threats of violence and intimidation, explicit and implicit.

  • Universal disparities, statistical and generic, in aggression, violence, criminality, salaciousness, promiscuity, fetishism, perversity, psychopathy, mathematical intelligence, etc.: e.g., many individual women are more violent than many individual men, but males as a group as far more violent than females.