Category Archives: CSA victimology

Does Abigail Know that Feminism is Culpable, Seminally and Predominantly, for Destroying her Life?

28 Saturday Jul 2018

Posted by in "sex-offender treatment", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, feminism, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

As noted previously, in a few posts, Abigail was prohibited from receiving and reading a letter and articles I sent to the Huron Valley Correctional Facility. To the authorities, my words were a “threat to security, good order, or discipline.”

Did the left-feminist ideologues and totalitarians who rule the prison and the lives of inmates believe that Abigail would have gone berserk and attacked the guards and/or other inmates, perhaps inciting a riot or mass revolt, had she been allowed to read my heterodox and “politically-incorrect” arguments and contentions. Or simply that they would have vitiated the efficacy of her “sex-offender treatment.”

So, in effect, I’m a victim of censorship, denied the right to correspond with Abigail and ask her many questions about her intrigue with a 15-year-old student and biological man, her phantasmal and theoretical “victim” whom she claims forced himself on her three times and “controlled her life” by threats and manipulation; her arrest, prosecution, trial, why she rejected the plea-bargains, her life in jail and prison; her life, especially as an adult, before it was shattered, forever and needlessly, by the criminal justice system; her ideals, values, and opinions on various issues and subjects: e.g., what did she think of Mary Letourneau and her affair with a student and her sentence of 8-years in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration. What did she think of such laws and penalties, to the extent that she was aware of them, before they ruined her life?

Like most educated women, the overwhelming majority, alas,, I presume that Abigail is a left-liberal, probably more liberal than extreme/radical left, though I could be wrong. And, moreover, that she defines and thinks of herself as a feminist, however defined, broadly or narrowly, vaguely or precisely, accurately or inaccurately. If so, does she know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life.

In pre-feminist America, including the 1960s, the decade of  the “sexual revolution,” “statutory rape” laws didn’t even apply to women in most jurisdictions. And if they did so apply to women in some states or if women who had sex with young men under age 16 or 18 were guilty of a “moral’s offense,” however defined, how many women were arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail or prison for such offenses? (Read my blog-post on Kirk Douglas) And how many were sentenced to 8-25 years in prison, like Abigail, or 6-15 years, like Kathryn Ronk, or enslaved for 8-years, like Mary Letourneau; or 40-years, like Shannon Schmeider, with a chance for parole after “only” 20 years; or life with a chance for parole after “only” 10-years, apparently, like Michelle Taylor; or 20-years with no chance for parole, like Brittany Zamora, and who knows how many other women, teachers and non-teachers, who received similar prison sentences. In pre-feminist America, was there even one woman who received such a draconian sentence for having a love affair or mere tryst with a biological man under age 18?

And even if incarcerated, none of them, upon their release, were subjected to years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet,” and registration for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, their mug-shots, names, and addresses on the internet for all to see and all that that entails in regard to danger and mortification.

None of these laws and policies, these draconian/Orwellian punishments, inflicted on Abigail and myriads of other women for no exigent and practical reasons, would exist if not for feminism. Beginning in the early 1970s, in deference to feminism and the anti-rape movement which began, publicly and officially, in 1971 with the New York radical feminist rape conference, sex crime laws were revamped. State legislators, overwhelmingly male, enacted and imposed laws written by feminist lawyers.

De facto consensual sex between adults and young men and women under age 16 or 18, depending on the age of consent in each jurisdiction, was now a “gender-neutral” crime that applied equally to women and was equated or conflated under the law with violent-forcible rape and the rape and/or molestation of prepubescent children. And women were now defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships

Most infamously, Mary Letourneau was convicted of “child rape” under Washington law, and sentenced to almost a decade in prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration, albeit she didn’t rape her “victim,” obviously, nor did she use violence/force or threats of same to compel his submission, nor was she guilty of molesting a prepubescent child. Her victim” was the aggressor and initiator who forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse. (Read my articles and blog-posts on her case for more details and analysis.)

Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall was convicted of “sexual assault of a child,” which implies that she was guilty of violence/force or threats of same in sexually abusing and violating a helpless and innocent  prepubescent boy, and sentenced to 4-years in prison and a lifetime of sex-offender registration -when, in fact, she was the victim of abuse and her “victim” was the abuser and victimizer. He was not a child, biologically, but a man in size and sexuality, a delinquent and criminal of 15 who, as her student, constantly harassed and implored her for sex at school and in her classroom, molested and kissed her against her will, and finally raped her when she visited him at home on school business, apparently when no one else was present. She didn’t report the rape lest he “go to prison and become more of a delinquent.” Exploiting her altruism and compassion, not only misguided and foolish but ill-deserved and self-destructive, he manipulated and bullied her into having sex with him in an intrigue she didn’t know how to “end without hurting him,” resulting to her arrest and all that followed,

The real criminal, sexually and otherwise, was not punished, and who knows how many crimes he committed before he raped and molested Cassandra, and who knows how manyy crimes he’s committed thereafter. Did he rape any more women or adolescent girls, or even murder someone, like the “victim” of Melissa Bittner, who was convicted of
“sexual assault” and sentenced to prison and much else because she was sexually assaulted by a 16-year-old delinquent. (See the posts on her case for more details.)

Ironically and paradoxically, such iniquities and outrages and travesties, inflicted even on women who were raped and molested by their de jure “victims” but still charged with and convicted of felony sex offenses, and the draconian-Orwellian sentences, are inconceivable apart from feminism and the anti-rape movement and CSA victimology.

CSA victimology and it’s tenets and dogmas and the resultant mass-hysteria, psychosis, moral panics, witch-hunts, and imprisonment and persecution of myriads of men and women who were/are either innocent or guilty of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita felonies, overwhelmingly first-offenders who, even if not innocent, were/are not violent and dangerous, people who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in their lives and almost surely never will and are not a “threat to society or to anyone nor even a “danger to reoffend” by having sex with another biological man or woman under statutory age – this madness and reign of terror is inconceivable apart from feminist ideology and it’s decades-long jihad against sexual victimization, real and imagined.

Nor would adult women who have sex with young men under statutory age be absurdly defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” if not for feminism and the myth and premise that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and the conflation of prepubescent boys and girls with pubescent male and female adolescents. And even the inescapable differences in anatomy and their relevance to and importance in sexual postures and possibilities are denied and trivialized as irrelevant and insignificant by feminists and others (most fanatically, obsessively, and viciously by MRA, the misogynist crazies and liars of the soi-disant “men’s movement”) who define and vilify adult women as “rapists” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships  “sex-equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes,” to quote John Derbyshire, and the only crime in which the “victim” enjoys the actus reus (i.e. the sex) more than the woman who “rapes” and/or “molests” and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.” Nor would young men under age 16 or even 18 who consent to or initiate sex with adult women be defined as “victims” of “rape” and CSA who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life.”

Abigail was convicted of “criminal sexual misdonduct,” a vague term, legally and empircally, under which all sorts of sex-acts that are now crimes, nearly always felonies, are subsumed: everything from violent-forcible rape, iinclding the most sadistic, brutal, vicious rapes and gang-rapes, truly “heinous” crimes that often also involve aggravated assault, kidnapping, “false imprisonment,” home invasions, torture, mutilation, and murder; to the molestation of prepubescent children; to factually consensual sex between adults and young men and women under statutory age, including women who are convicted of felonies for having sex with biological men under age 16 or 18 (or even 18-year-olds if the women is a teacher or tutor like Abigail and the “victim” is a student under her authority.

In contrast, legally and empirically, “statutory rape” is not a vaguely defined criminal offense. It defines, clearly and accurately, a specific and objective act. The modifying “statutory” denotes an absence of violent/force or threats of same to compel the submission of the “victim” -i.e., it reveals that the sex was consensual, factually as opposed to legally- while “rape” signifies the reality of penile-vaginal penetration, an act which only males can perpetrate. Thus even to define the women above as “statutory rapists” and their “crimes” as “statutory rape” is objectively and empirically false and thus absurd.

To repeat: Does Abigail know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life, culpable for her sentence of 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove and public sex-offender registration. And so, too, now and in the past and future, he women above and far too many others whose lives have been and will be blighted or destroyed by modern feminism and CSA victimology.

 

In a Sane and Just and Rational Country

14 Monday May 2018

Posted by in "anarcho-tyranny", "sex-offender treatment", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

In a sane and just and rational country, women teachers who have sex with students, almost always young men ages 13-18, would be punished, non-criminally, by dismissal and revocation of their licenses and expulsion from the profession, whether for 5-10 years or for life depending on the facts and circumstances, “aggravating” and “mitigating.”.Or, at worst, charged with misdemeanors, however defined, and sentenced to 6-12 months of probation and perhaps 50-100 hours of some kind of community service: no prison, no jail, no “sex-offender treatment,” no quasi-totalitarian supervision, no electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” they can never remove (not even when sleeping, bathing, showering, having sex with a spouse or paramour), no registration for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely deviant and dangerous criminals -all this for first-offenders convicted of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita “crimes,” women who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in their lives and never will and are not a “threat to society” or to anyone or even a danger to “re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age, the only crime in which the “victim” enjoys the actus reus (i.e., the sex) far more than the woman who “rapes” and “molests” him under the law and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical victimization.

If he had been 16 rather than 15, just a few months and/or weeks older….

13 Friday Apr 2018

Posted by in "anarcho-tyranny", "sex-offender treatment", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, Kathryn Ronk, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The generic age of consent is 16 in Michigan. If Abigail’s “victim” had been 16 rather than 15, just a few months and/or weeks older, and she had not been his tutor, their affair would have been legal under Michigan Law -and that’s assuming she’s lying about his forcing himself on her, in which case she would have been the victim under the law and he would have been the criminal.

But since he was 15 rather than 16, just a few months and/or weeks short of his 16th birthday, and she was his tutor, thereby in a position of authority over him which, theoretically if not empirically, enhances the gravity of her crimes and the severity of his “victimization.” she was guilty of a felony with a maximum sentence of 25-years to life in prison and a mandatory minimum of 8-25 years in prison and a life-sentence of electronic-parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” she’s prohibited from removing, even when bathing, showering, and having sex with a spouse or paramour, and registration for life as a uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminal, her mug-shot, name, and address on the internet for all to see and act on such information: hate-mail, death threats, vandalism of property, criminal assaults. And years of “sex-offender treatment,” during and after her imprisonment, and years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision.

Ponder the insanity and absurdity and iniquity and arbitrariness! To repeat: to call all of this insane is actually an understatement; it’s beyond insanity. How I’d love to spend an hour or two in a bar with 7 or 8 of the politicians who were most culpable for enacting and imposing these grotesque, draconian, irrational, arbitrary, iniquitous, Orwellian laws; and in regard to Abigail and Kathryn Ronk and their hideously draconian punishments, obviously “cruel and unusual” in the sense of being totally unnecessary. How fascinating it would be to hear them try to defend such laws and the sentences of Abigail, Kathryn Ronk, and many other women, and the dogmas and myths upon which they’re based, and to refute my arguments and contentions.

Time.com Summarizes the 22nd Most “Notorious Crime” of the “Past Hundred Years”

05 Thursday Apr 2018

Posted by in age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness, Mary Letourneau, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

What happens to a woman when she finds the man of her dreams, only he is a child? And if the woman is his teacher? American parents cringed at the story of Mary Kay Letourneau, who first met Vili Fualaau when she was his teacher in second grade. He did not start flirting with her until he was in sixth. She started to have sex with him the next year, when he was 13. Already the mother of four from a marriage that was disintegrating, she would bear the teenager’s daughter, but not before she ended up in prison on rape and molestation charges. She would then violate the rules for the suspension of her sentence by seeing him again -and becoming pregnant again. Letourneau’s beauty and struggles with manic depression made her illicit affair the fodder of tabloids and women’s magazine around the world. But there was something touching, if maddening, abut her refusal to renounce her love for the boy at the cost of her freedom. In 1998, after giving birth to her second child, she began serving a seven-year prison sentence. Released on parole in August 2004, she quickly married her young lover, who by then had turned 21. (Howard Chua-Eoan, “Mary Kay Letourneau’s Forbidden Love, 1978,” Time.com, 2007.)

Surprisingly, this account of her story is honest and accurate, neutral and objective, comparatively, in contrast to most of the media coverage, characterized and vitiated by falsehoods, intentional and unintentional, lies and canards, distortions and misinformation, rampant hysteria and tabloid sensationalism: the demonization of Mary as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester,” a description that was/is false, objectively and scientifically, and malicious and slanderous. And the depiction, equally false, of Vili as a “victim” of “rape” and “child molestation,” tantamount or comparable to a prepubertal girl of 11 or 12 who is too young and immature to consent to or initiate sex and who is a true victim of a perverse and predatory male, an adult or underage adolescent, who rapes and molests her. The MSM as a whole was less a source of factual and objective news than an agent and myrmidon of CSA victimology propaganda and inculcation.

This journalist doesn’t refer to Mary as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester.” Or Vili as a “victim.” He notes that he was 13, not 12, when they first had sex and that he started to flirt with her in sixth grade, conceding that he was the initiator of their sexual union but not exposing the nature and degree of his aggressions. It notes that her marriage was “disintegrating,” which implies that she didn’t destroy her marriage and betray her husband and desert her children by falling in love and having sex with Vili and twice becoming pregnant, but doesn’t mention that her marriage was “disintegrating,” primarily, because of her husband’s serial adulteries and philandering. She was finally going to divorce him after years of betrayal and infidelity, apparently, and perhaps he wanted to divorce her because he fell in love with and wanted to marry or live with another woman? And in describing her love for Vili as “touching” and her “struggles with manic depression,” he’s commiserative, mildly, rather than censorious.

It’s true that he was “only” 13, not 12, when they first had sex. But it’s also true that he was pubescent at age 10, “sexually-active” at age 12, for sure, and possibly even 11, and probably had more sexual partners, perhaps far more, at age 13 than did Mary at age 33. Raised as a Catholic, strictly and devoutly, it’s possible that the only man Mary had sex with before Vili was her husband. And Vili was the aggressor in their sexual union, forcing himself on her the first time they had intercourse. In response to my comments, she confirmed in one of the many letters we exchanged that the first time they had intercourse was “against my will.”

So, given such facts, his level of maturity was closer to that of a typical 16- or 17-old as opposed to a typical 13-year-old. In regard to maturity, the age of puberty, intelligence, sexual experience, etc, the nature of 13-year-old varies significantly. Millions of 13- and 14-year-olds, especially if pubescent at age 10 or 11 or 12, are more or far more intelligent, mature, “sexually-active,” sexually-experienced, etc., than millions of 16- and17-year-olds.

(For the record, which is pertinent, I was an atheist at age 10, when I was still a child, biologically, agnostic at 8 and 9 as I vaguely remember, and pubescent at age 11, which reveals a level of maturity far beyond my numerical age. And Vili was pubescent at age 10.)

The obligatory lie or canard that began in 1997 and continues to this day, over 20-years later, is that Mary “seduced” and “raped” the “child” and “little boy” when he was only 12-years-old. The commenters and reporters who say and write this are either lying or misinformed. Are they ignorant of the facts or are they lying to make her “crimes” appear more “heinous” and “shocking” and to give the absurd depiction and vilification of Mary as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester” a spurious credibility and gravitas. Unlike Vili and many others, most 12-year-olds are prepubescent. Prepubertal 12-year-olds are children, biologically, whereas most 13-year-olds are pubescent, and also teenagers.

Recidivism Rates of Sex Offenders: Violent Rapists and Pedophiles vs. Women who have Sex with Biological Men under Statutory Age

01 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by in "anarcho-tyranny", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness, MRAs, "men's movement, sex offender registry, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

CSA victimologists argue that sex-offenders, all  sex-offenders, not only violent rapists and pedophiles but also adults who engage in consensual sex-acts with pubescent teenagers under statutory age, have greater rates of recidivism than other categories of convicted felons and, consequently, must be forced to register as uniquely deviant and dangerous criminals.

NARSOL (formerly RSOL) has many articles confuting, persuasively, the contention that sex-offenders are more likely to re-offend than other classes of offenders, even recidivist criminals who’ve committed dozens of violent and other mala in se crimes but have never been convicted of a sexual offense.

Moreover, the recidivism rates of sex-offenders in general are profoundly misleading in that the overwhelming majority of males who commit violent/forcible rapes and gang-rapes, and virtually all of those who commit street/stranger rapes (e.g., who rape and gang-rape women in parks or break into homes and rape and gang-rape women, crimes which often involve murder and/or aggravated assault), are low IQ recidivist criminals who also commit other violent and mala in se crimes. This reality induces all kinds of confusion and can be easily manipulated, statistically, to foster the myth that sex-offenders in general are more likely to re-offend than other categories of offenders.

But even if one assumes, purely for the sake of argument, that NARSOL and other critics are wrong and that sex-offenders as a group do have higher rates of recidivism than other categories of felons, what’s true of sex offenders as a group does not apply to adults, first-offenders with no prior criminal records, who have consensual sex with pubescent teenagers under age 16 or 17 or 18, depending on the age of consent in each state, and especially to women who have sex with young men under statutory age.

It’s likely that not one woman teacher who had sex with a male student age 13-17 (and its now a felony in most states for teachers to have consensual sex with 18-year-old students) has ‘re-offended” by having sex with another young man under statutory age. If so, their recidivism rate is ZERO. And even if one or two of them have “re-offended,” i.e.,transporting another biological man under under statutory age to carnal elysium, which I doubt, their recidivism rate is far less than one percent or almost ZERO.

Males who commit violent/forcible rapes, overwhelmingly low-IQ stereotypical criminals (including biological men under age 18 who are absurdly defined as “children”), are driven by a propensity for violence and predation that is insoluble and difficult to control. This explains why they are likely to re-offend by committing not only rapes and gang-rapes but also aggravated assaults, muggings, armed robberies, burglaries, gang-shootings, murders, attempted murders, home invasions, etc.

True pedophiles convicted of raping and/or molesting prepubescent children, i.e., biological men (including those under age 18 who are defined as “children”) with a sexual fixation on and obsession with prepubescent children, are driven by a fetish and “paraphilia” that is incurable and often difficult to control, Ergo, they’re a risk to re-offend.

Adult females who have sex with young men under the age of 16 or 17 or 18 are not driven by a propensity for violence or a fetish or “paraphilia” that is insoluble and difficult to control. And that explains why it’s likely that not a single woman teacher who had sex with a male student has “re-offended” by having sex with another biological man under statutory age. That explains why their recidivism rate is likely ZERO and surely far less than ONE PERCENT. The reason for this is that they were attracted to and had sex with young men under age 18 for the same reason they’re attracted to and have had sex with adult men in their 20s and 30s and 40s and beyond.

But to CSA victimologists, virtually all of whom are feminists and left-liberals, and to MRAs, the misogynist crazies and vermin of the soi-disant “men’s movement,” and the millions and millions of men and women they’re browbeat and brainwashed, adult females who have consensual sex with young men under statutory age are tantamount or comparable to men (including underage adolescents) who commit violent/forcible rapes and to pedophiles who rape and molest prepubescent boys and girls, and thus are defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” and “child molesters” who must register for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely deviant and dangerous criminals who are more likely to re-offend than criminals who are actually violent and seriously dangerous, including stereotypical and recidivist males who’ve committed dozens of violent and other mala in se crimes but who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense albeit most of them have raped and/or gang-raped men in jails and prisons and/or women and adolescent girls.

Thus Abigail Simon must not only register for life as a uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminal, her name, mug-shot, and address on the internet for all to see along with myriads of other men and women who are not violent and dangerous, unlike legions of true criminals, nor even a “danger to re-offend” by having sex with another teenager under statutory age. She must also wear an electronic ankle-tether/”bracelet” she can never remove until she dies at age 77 or 84 or 96 or whenever -albeit she has never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in her life and never will and is not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor even a “danger” to “re-offend” by having sex with another biological man under statutory age.

To repeat: decrying this as “insane” is an understatement. It’s beyond insanity.

 

Why do I Bother?

19 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, Cassandra, CSA victimology, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

The primary reason I started this blog was to send Abigail letters and articles and posts on her case and those of other women, teachers and non-teachers, infamous and obscure, whose lives have been ruined, to varying degrees, by these insane and execrable and grotesque laws, asking her many question, questions about her liaison with the football star, her arrest, jailing, prosecution, rejection of plea-bargains, pretrial hearings, trial, conviction, sentencing, her life in jail and prison, and hoping she’d respond, as did Mary Letourneau, in many long letters, and Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall in two short letters in which she answered a few questions, giving me some useful information, before saying she didn’t want to further discuss the matter. I was hoping she’d respond at length and also tell her family and friends, giving me their addresses, preferably their email addresses, so I could write them and ask many questions about the travail and nightmare, both of Abigail and themselves, from her arrest to her imprisonment, and their opinions, emotions, thoughts, etc.

A few weeks after sending her a letter and a few articles and blog-posts, I received a letter from the prison mail-room, a Michigan Department of Corrections’ “Notice of Package/Mail Rejection” with “threat to security, good order or discipline” highlighted in yellow as the reason for rejection.

So to the prison authorities, opposition to and criticism of  CSA victimology, the absurd premises and dogmas and the laws and policies they’ve engendered -e.g., ludicrously defining women as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for allowing  biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships, and the young men who consent to or initiate sex with them as “victims” of rape and CSA who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” and, consequently, the draconian/Orwellian punishments: sentences of months in jail or years in prison (in some cases even decades), mandatory “sex–offender treatment,” electronic parole-monitoring, quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, public sex-offender registration- was a “threat to security, good order or discipline.”

How exactly? Did they fear that Abigail would go berserk after reading my letter and articles and blog-posts and assault a few or many guards and inmates. And so, too, with Kathryn Ronk, who was also not allowed to read the letter and articles and blog-post I sent her to maintain “security, good order, and discipline.”

And this message:

NOTE: A copy of this notice is being mailed to sender if rejected pursuant to PD 05.03.118 “Prisoner Mail.” The sender has 10 business days  to send any opposition to this proposed action to the facility head. The sender will be notified of the final decision…

I responded but received no response, I wasn’t “notified of the final decision” for whatever reasons. I was infuriated, dismayed, and also surprised that Abigail, unlike Mary and Cassandra, was prohibited from receiving and reading the letter and articles and blog-posts I sent her in the land of “freedom of speech” and the First Amendment.

So I’m a victim of censorship, not criminally, but in the sense of those with heterodox and “politically-incorrect” views on race and “gender,” academics and students who are censored and punished by universities, e.g., suspended without pay or even fired, expelled and vilified and rebuked and pilloried, compelled to attend “re-education” and “sensitivity training” indoctrination, for the sins of “racism,” “sexism,” nativism, xenophobia, “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” etc.; intellectuals and advocates who are not allowed to speak and express their views on colleges or in the mainstream media, and so forth. To the ruling-elites and governing-classes, not only the left and center but, on some matters, even the right, mainstream and “respectable,” their views are so toxic that the public, whether people watching TV or reading newspapers or students at universities, can’t be allowed to hear them lest they weaken the sacred and regnant myths and orthodoxies, just as Abigail can’t be allowed to read my views on her affair and punishment, arguments and contentions, no matter how logical and realistic and compelling, that are a “threat to security, good order, and discipline.”

Does she even know that I and my blog exist. Do any of her family and friends know that I and my blog exist and, if so, have they read the articles and blog-posts, whether many or just a few. If so, one would think that at least one of them would have sent me an email, however succinct, thanking me for writing on behalf of their daughter, sister, friend, acquaintance.

So why do I bother? And why this subject? I have to do something, something to use my talents and erudition and intelligence, something to pass the time until I depart this madhouse or grow senile and end up in a nursing home. And though I’m essentially an autodidact with no elitist and high-flown “credentials” in the age of ‘credentialism,” I’m the world’s leading critic and expert on this matter from a heterodox and “politically-incorrect” perspective.

 

Why the Sexes don’t Understand Each Other, and How this Relates to Women having Sex with Young Men under Statutory Age

11 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by in Abigail Simon sentence, age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness, MRAs, "men's movement, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The fundamental reason men and women don’t understand each other is because they have different bodies. The only way men could understand female sexuality, comprehend it fully as lived experience, is if they had female bodies. The only way that men could understand what it’s like to be a woman in respect to pregnancy, sexuality, hormones, menstruation, etc. is if they were female.

The only way that women could understand male sexuality, especially that of young males in their 20s and teens, comprehend it fully as lived experience, is if they had penises and male levels of testosterone, which would make them male rather than female.

With the exception of “men’s rights activists” -pathological and vehement misogynists and thus the loudest and craziest voices in demonizing and vilifying women as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for transporting biological men under age 18 to sexual paradise in factually consensual relationships0- women in general are more punitive and hysterical than men over affairs and trysts in which the “victims” almost always enjoy the sex far more than the women who “rape” and “molest” them and are often if not usually the aggressors and initiators of their phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.”

The reason for this is not only that women as a group are more vitiated by feminist and CSA victimology propaganda and inculcation, but also because women don’t understand male sexuality, especially that of males in their 20’s and teens, including young men under age 18 who consent to or initiate sex with adult women. Their corruption by feminism and obsession with equality as sameness explains, paradoxically, why many if not most women, at least among educated women, are more angry over adult females, especially teachers in positions of authority, having sex with young men under statutory age than they are with adult men and even male teachers having sex with underage adolescent girls, and more punitive in their calls for retribution.

In respect to sex between adults and underage adolescents, this ignorance of male sexuality also explains why women in general are less likely to criticize and oppose and more likely to support the insanely and uniquely draconian/Orwellian laws and punishments, grotesque and gratuitous, “cruel and unusual,” imposed on adults who are at least 4-5 years older than their de jure “victims,” especially as they relate to women having sex with young men under statutory age.

It explains why women are more likely than men (save MRA’s and the likes of Barton Dieters) to view the young men as “victims” of “rape” and CSA who’ll be “traumatized and scarred for life” and the women as “rapists” and “pedophiles” who deserve to be sentenced to years or even decades in prison and subjected to mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet,” possibly for life as with Abigail Simon, and a lifetime or at least 20-30 years of public registration on the internet as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, unlike myriads of low-IQ brutes and savages who’ve committed dozens and scores of violent and other mala in se crimes but have never been convicted of a sexual offense albeit most of them have raped or gang-raped men in jails and prisons and/or women  and adolescent girls. Because of the media, primarily, untold millions of women hate Mary Letourneau, Debra Lafave, and Abigail Simon more than all these low-IQ brutes and savages put together. whose crimes the media ignores and suppresses, with some exceptions.

 

 

Beyond Insanity: Woman teacher sentenced to 40-Years in prison for having sex with 14-year-old male student

29 Wednesday Nov 2017

Posted by in "anarcho-tyranny", age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, MRAs, "men's movement, plea-bargain, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

From news.com (8/16/2013):

Teacher jailed for 40-years for sex with student age 14. From Daily Mail, 2-18- Shannon Alicia Schmieder, 39, will have to serve 20 years in the toughest sentence ever handed out by a U.S. court to a teacher accused of underage sex, The Daily Mail reported (February 18, 2012).

And from human-stupidity.com (8/16/13):

Female teacher Shannon Alicia Schmieder, in Coweta, Georgia received a 40-year jail sentence for sex with a 14-year-old boy. This fills some men’s rights proponents with glee: finally a woman gets a taste of the bitter “age of consent” medicine concocted by feminists and religious zealots: the same high jail terms men routinely get sentenced to. Making love carries the same prison term as murder or manslaughter.

Actually, her 40-year prison (not jail) sentence “fills” nearly all MRAs with “glee.” And her sentence, if she serves the full 40-years, is roughly 7-times more severe than the average-time served for murder, and almost 4-times more severe if she’s paroled after “only” 20-years. 40-years in prison, under a plea-bargain, apparently, and she won’t be eligible for parole until she’s been enslaved and abused and degraded for 20 years in a chthonic Georgia prison -at least 20-years if not longer in a country in which, during the 1990’s, the decade in which the U.S. began to “get tough on crime,” the average time-served for murder was less than 6-years and the average time-served for all violent felonies (aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and homicide) was approximately 4-years! And one can be sure that over-90% of these felonies, among the male offenders, were committed by recidivists, most of whom should have been in prison rather than free to commit more violent felonies. And given their crime rates in relation to those of females, males are the beneficiaries, overwhelmingly, of this systemic leniency.

So it’s not true that adult men, including violent and/or recidivist criminals, are “routinely” sentenced to 40-years in prison for having sex with pubescent teenagers under statutory age. I doubt if the average sentence for all adult men, including those with prior criminal records, is even 4-5 years. It’s true that male teachers are often sentenced to 10-20 years in prison for having love affairs and mere trysts with underage female and male adolescents in a country in which violent and/or recidivist male criminals are routinely and systematically coddled.

But rather than decry and oppose the hideously draconian prison sentences often inflicted on male teachers and the draconian/Orwellian post-incarceration punishments inflicted on all male teachers -virtually all of whom are first-offenders convicted of nonviolent and usually victimless and mala prohibita felonies that are often legal acts (or perhaps misdemeanors) in dozens of other nations, including European countries, men who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in their lives and almost surely never will and are not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor usually even a danger to re-offend by having sex with another underage teenager- MRAs demand that the lives of women be destroyed by the same hideously draconian/Orwellian punishments.

So pathological and virulent and obsessive is their hatred of women and lust for vengeance -against not only those they revile and asperse as “feminazis” but women in general and white females in particular, usually because of the actions of one or a few women in their personal lives, nearly always ex-wives, and/or sexual frustration- that they’re willing to destroy the lives of myriads of men who are not violent or dangerous in order to destroy the lives of a much smaller number of women who transport biological men under statutory age to carnal Elysium.

And with a distinctly venomous fixation on and obsession with notorious “rapists” and “pedophiles” like Mary Letourneau, Debra Lafave, and other teachers who, in contrast to men in the inverted fantasy world these deranged misogynists inhabit, nearly always receive “a slap on the wrist” and little or no serious punishment.

Consummate and tireless practitioners of the logical fallacy of confirmation bias, “masculinists” cherry-pick cases in which men are sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for having sex with underage adolescents, males and females, and contrast them with cases of women who receive probation or “only” 6-12 months in jail or “only” 1 or 2 years in prison, thus advancing the lie and canard that men are nearly always sentenced to 20 or 30 years in prison while women are nearly always sentenced to probation or a few months in jails that are benign and liveable compared to male prisons and the male housing units of jails -not because male inmates, generally, are far more violent, brutal, vicious, sadistic, predatory, etc., but because of “misandry” and anti-male “sexism” and discrimination. Men are crucified, almost invariably, their lives destroyed, while female “rapists,” “predators,” “child molesters,” and “pedophiles” are shockingly and scandalously indulged, almost invariably, walking away with a “slap-on-the-wrist.”

Tell that to Shannon Schmieder, Michelle Taylor, Abigail Simon, Kathryn Ronk, Mary Letourneau, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, Melissa Bittner (a transparently innocent women who was sentenced to a year in prison for “sexual assaults” that were committed against her by her “victim,” a 16-year-old criminal who was charged with murder shortly thereafter), Pamela Rogers. and many other women who are punished more or even far more severely than myriads of violent male criminals, usually recidivists, who commit aggravated assaults, muggings, armed robberies, gang-shootings, home invasions, rape, gang-rapes, and murders.

And even those who are sentenced to probation or “only” 6-12 months in hellish jails are actually sentenced to a lifetime or at at least 20-30 years of draconian/Orwellian persecution, including public registration (their names, mug-shots, and addresses on the internet for all to see and what that entails in regard to danger and mortification) as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, unlike myriads of male brutes and savages with histories of crime and violence beginning at age 13 or 14 who’ve committed dozens and scores of violent and other mala in se crimes  but have never been convicted of a sexual offense albeit most of them have committed rapes and/or gang-rapes either of men in jails and prisons and/or of women and adolescent girls in the free world.

Even Debra Lafave, one of few women, and perhaps the only female, to receive probation with no jail time since the Letourneau hysteria of 1997, was punished more severely in many ways than violent and/or recidivist male criminals who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense: 3-years of house-arrest (prohibited from leaving her mother’s house while not working), 7-years of parole, at least 10 years of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” she could never remove; restrictions of her freedoms and intrusions into her private life that don’t apply to violent and/or recidivist male criminals who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense (she was arrested and jailed and could have been sentenced to 15-years in prison for talking to a 17-year-old female co-worker about non-work related matters at a fast-food restaurant); and a life-sentence of public sex-offender registration.

Yes, all this was/is a “slap on the wrist” for the vile and heinous crime of engaging in a few acts of coitus and fellatio with a young man under statutory age, consensual sex the memories of which the de jure “victim” will forever cherish. And this was defined as “rape” and Debra as a “rapist” and the young man as a “victim” who is “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by having sex with a gorgeous and ravishing 23-year-old woman. The only suffering and “trauma” he endured was a result of the law and criminal justice system, and the media and its histrionic and sensationalist coverage, not only local and state but also national and even international, turning Debra into the most infamous and despised woman sex criminal since Mary Letourneau.

 

 

Realism and Sanity from “the Derb”: “Sex Equality Dogma taken to Lunatic Extremes”

27 Monday Nov 2017

Posted by in age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, Debra Lafave, John Derbyshire, Debra Lafave, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Writes John Derbyshire:

O’Reilly implodes; Is Bill O’Reilly finally imploding? I am still a regular viewer of the Factor, but I find that more and more often I turn it off after ten minutes or so to do something more rewarding.

For one thing, there’s his bullying and grandstanding about child molesters. Now, I not a big fan of child molesters, having two kids of my own. The real monsters, though, are a minuscule minority of those who would be swept up by the kinds of laws O’Reilly is arguing for. The majority would be harmless, clueless, sad types who had yielded to, or been led on to, the momentary of some petty fumbling, then been ready to commit suicide when they realized what they had done. People like that need to be chastised and set straight, but they don’t need the magnum sentences they’d get under Sandra’s law, or whatever the hell thing it is O’Reilly is bellowing for.

Even weirder is O’Reilly’s  conviction that the seduction of 14-year-old boys by pretty 25-year-old teachers is just as bad –precisely the same! deserves the identical sentence!- as the contrary thing with a 14-year-old girl and a 25-year-old male teacher. This is sex equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes, as I’ve argued in a previous diary. I’d expect this kind of junk jurisprudence from some glaring feminist, but why am I getting it from O’Reilly? (johnderbyshire.com/opinion/diaries/2006-04)

Actually, the view that the two acts are precisely the same and deserve the identical sentence informs the laws of all 50 states and has done so for decades and has long been espoused by virtually all of our ruling-elites and governing-classes, left and right and center: politicians, the media, SVU detectives, prosecutors, Judges, etc. What JD describes as “weird” is now a sacred and inviolate dogma, and for the elites and a plurality of people they’ve poisoned and propagandized, to confute this absurdity is comparable to denying the holocaust or defending slavery and segregation.

It should also be noted that in most of these intrigues, the woman isn’t even guilty of seduction. Either the “victim” is the aggressor and initiator or their sexual union could be described as a mutual coming together.

And though adult women allowing biological men under statutory age to penetrate them in de facto consensual relationships is not “as bad” or precisely the same as adult men penetrating and often impregnating underage adolescent girls, I also oppose draconian and “magnum” sentences for adult men who have love affairs or mere dalliances with young women under statutory age if they are first-offenders with no history of violent or other mala in se criminality.

The Distinctly Odious Barton Deiters

21 Saturday Oct 2017

Posted by in "traumatization", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, appeal, Barton Dieters, CSA victimology, MRAs, "men's movement, Uncategorized, women as rapists

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

As noted in previous articles/blog-posts: when covering the arrest, prosecution, trial, conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and appeals in this case, Barton Dieters has often been less a reporter than a myrmidon of and cheerleader for the prosecution, and later for the judge who twice upheld Abigail’s prison sentence of 8-25 years and life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” she can never remove

For example, a reporter who uses the phrase “ex-tutor guilty of raping her student” is not a true journalist, objective and neutral, but an activist and CSA victimologist, who is using language not to describe but rather to distort and pervert objective reality for ideological and propagandistic easons. Not having penises, women can’t commit rape in the pure and literal sense of the word. And Abigail wasn’t guilty of “rape” even if defined as violent sexual assault. If anyone was a victim of rape in this liaison, it was Abigail if she’s telling the truth about her de jure “victim” forcing himself on her.

And his tendentiousness was blatant in using words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down” in covering the judge’s decisions and arguments at her re-sentencing. “Dispatch” means “to kill with quick efficiency; to dispose of something rapidly or efficiently”; to “defeat.” “Shoot down” means to “kill, defeat, discredit.” And a synonym of “shoot down” is “skewer,” which means to “criticize or ridicule sharply and effectively.” So, according to Dieters, the judge killed Tieber’s arguments, metaphorically, with rapidity and efficiency. He defeated, discredited, and skewered them.

Writing that the judge “rejected” Tieber’s arguments would have been true journalism, neutral and objective, an exemplar of simply reporting the facts rather than siding with the judge, indeed hailing the judge’s decision by using words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down,” and against Tieber.

His use of such words not only implies but asserts that Tieber was wrong in claiming that Abigail was not a threat to “re-offend” and in arguing that a life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with a ankle-tether/”bracelet” was “cruel and unusual punishment,” and that the judge was right in upholding her 8-25 year prison sentence and life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring.

The use of words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down” not only asserts that Tieber’s arguments were wrong and demonstrably false, contrary to facts and logic and reason, but also ridiculous, irrational, delusional.

Imagine the outrage and hysteria if he had sided with Tieber and against the judge by asserting that Tieber was right and the judge was wrong and used words to praise Tieber and belittle and asperse the judge.

As a CSA victimologist, he obviously thinks of her as a “rapist” and “child molester,” perhaps even a “pedophile,” and the biological man who assented to or initiated sex with her as a “child” and “victim” of “rape” and CSA who’ll be “traumatized” and “scarred for life,” whatever the facts and circumstances, even if he raped her, as did the “victim” of Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, and she then assented to sex as did Cassandra.

And he obviously believes she deserves to be enslaved and abused and degraded in prison for at least 8-years if not longer and then subjected to a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution, for a “crime” in which the “victim” enjoys the sex more than the woman who “raped” and “molested” him and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.”

The description of Abigail’s lover and other young men who consent to or initiate sex with adult women as “victims” is not an objective fact but an ideological dogma and legal classification. Journalists and reporters and others who use the term “victim” without quotation marks are legitimizing this dogma and legal classification rather than describing objective reality. They’re reifying a dogma and theory for which there is no objective evidence and empirical substantiation.

To those of us who aren’t MRAs and/or CSA victimologists, or brainwashed and vitiated by same, precisely the opposite is palpably true: the judge was wrong and Tieber was right. The judge’s arguments -what he now believes given his “reeducation” or affects to believe given his fear of  MRAs and CSA victimologists-  were not only false but ridiculous, based on lies and/or delusions.

To those of us who are honest, realistic, objective, and rational on this matter, Tieber was right in arguing that Abigail is not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor even a danger to “re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age, and thus her sentence of 8-25 years in prison was grossly and absurdly excessive and iniquitous, and her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove was “cruel and unusual punishment,” not only in the sense of being cruel, obviously, but also wholly gratuitous, completely unnecessary in that Abigail has never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in her life and never will or is not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor even a “danger to re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age.

But why, seemingly, does he hate her more than most true sex criminals, at least those who are black, Muslim, and “Hispanic”/”Latino”: e.g., males (including biological men under age 18 who are absurdly defined as “children”) who commit violent/forcible rapes and gang-rapes of adult females and underage adolescent girls, most heinously those who use knives and guns and terrorize and brutalize and gravely injure their victims; or men (including underage pubescent teenagers) who rape or prey on and molest prepubertal children.

And does he hate the low IQ brutes and savages who, each year in Detroit alone, commit hundreds of rapes and murders and thousands of other violent and mala in se crimes, and have done so for decades, destroying a city that was once extolled as the “Paris of the West”? Of course not, not as a group or as individuals. Like all leftists, I’m sure he views most of them with empathy and compassion, as “victims” of “racism” and the “legacy of slavery and segregation.” And the hysteria over Abigail’s intrigue with a young man of 15 distracts from the anarchy and mayhem and warfare in Detroit and, to a lesser degree, Flint and Grand Rapids.

One senses that his hatred of Abigail is, in some ways and to some degree, whatever the reasons, deeply personal. One would think he was the “victim’s father,” or a relative. Or that the “victim’s” parents were his friends and/or neighbors, whom he knows intimately.

He appears to revel in her anguish and degradation, pain and suffering. I’m sure he was happy to see her in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons for well over 2-hours at her sentencing, so enervated by fear and angst and despair and lack of sleep that she could barely walk or even stand and almost collapsed twice and often crying. I’m sure he hopes her life in prison is hellish, abusive, degrading, and nightmarish, the more so the better. Thanks to the media, led by him, she’s surely the most infamous, and probably the most hated, of all 2000-plus inmates. He might even be glad to hear that she was assaulted, brutally and viciously, or even murdered.