Category Archives: Abigail Simon

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.

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..

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.

“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.