Category Archives: innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness

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

10 Sunday Jan 2021

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.

Jeffrey Epstein was not a Pedophile

06 Monday Jan 2020

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, age of consent, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness, Jeffrey Epstein, Kathryn Ronk, Mary Letourneau, media coverage, sensationalism, Melissa Bittner, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Google searches for “Jeffrey Epstein, pedophile,” and “Jeffrey Epstein is a pedophile,” resulted in 1.1 million and 1.4 million results. And when reading the titles of dozens of these results, I found only one article that observed, correctly, that Epstein was not a pedophile, and explained why in some detail: “Jeffrey Epstein is a horrifying person, but that doesn’t mean he’s a pedophile,” Katie Herzog, The Stranger, 7-15-2019.

(I submit that calling Epstein and his crimes “horrifying” is just a bit excessive and hyperbolic -compared to the horrors and atrocities of the Carr Brothers and the Knoxville savages, for example, and myriads of other crimes almost no one has ever heard of because of media suppression.)

And I’m certain that nearly all of the “talking heads,” reporters and commentators, hosts and guests, on Fox and CNN and MSNBC, when discussing the Epstein case, referred to him as a “pedophile,” and I doubt that even one of them noted that he was not a pedophile. And so, too, hundreds of other TV programs, news and commentary, newspapers, local and national, and websites, prominent and obscure.

Even John Derbyshire, who once knew better, not long ago, but does no longer, apparently, referred to Epstein as a “pedophile.”

Whatever one thinks of Jeffrey Epstein and his decades of having sex with young women ages 14-17, apparently, he was not a pedophile. 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.”

And Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield:

….The DSM-TV American Psychiatric Association defines pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children…It is therefore possible for an individual who meets these criteria to have never engaged in illegal sexual behaviors…All mental health professionals…should know this distinction. (“Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases,” in Coping with psychiatric and Psychological Testimony, Los Angeles Law and Psychological Press, 1995, p. 1336.)

Politicians, prosecutors, judges, journalists, reporters, commentators, all those with the power and influence, collectively and individually, to manipulate the emotions and shape the opinions of millions or even tens of millions of people, should also know this instead of provoking and misleading the public by defining adults who have sex with biological men and women under age 16 or even 18 as “pedophiles,” whether it’s Jeffrey Epstein or Abigail Simon and Mary Letourneau.

Pedophilia defines sexual desire, not criminal behavior. It’s reasonable to assume that most pedophiles, heterosexual and homosexual, have never raped or molested a prepubescent child. Thus if sexual attraction to young men and women under age 16 or even 18 is “pedophilia,” which is isn’t, then all men, heterosexual and homosexual, are pedophiles, which they are not.

Then all adult men who are attracted to young women under statutory age are “pedophiles,” just like Epstein, even if they’ve never had sex as adults with a young woman under statutory age. If Epstein was a “pedophile” for having sex with young women ages 14-17, then all adult men who desire to have sex with young women under age 18 but don’t have sex with them are “pedophiles,” but only if they’re 4-5 years older than the young women to which they’re sexually attracted, according to CSA victimologists.

Moreover, albeit the U.S. is sui generis in its hysteria over sex between adult men and women and male and female adolescents, as exemplified by the obsession with and hysteria over Epstein and his “pedophile ring” and “island/kingdom,” the generic age of consent is 16 in most jurisdictions. (Thus many or at least some of his sex-acts with girls of 16 and 17 were legal acts.) And the age of consent is 14 or 15 in dozens of other nations, including European countries.

If adult men and women having sex with young men and women ages 16 and 17 is pedophilia, but only if the adults are at least 4-5 years older than their de jure “victims,” then pedophiliac sex is legal in most states if the adult is not in a position of authority over their “victims.” And if sex between adults and young men and women ages 14 and 15 is “pedophilia,” then pedophiliac sex is legal in many other countries.

A pedophile is a man (including “older adolescents,” as noted by Wikipedia.com) with a sexual fixation on and obsession with prepubescent girls or boys. Even if women have sexual contact with prepubescent children, they aren’t necessarily pedophiles. In fact, it’s debatable if a woman can even be a pedophile under the APA definition, certainly not in the sense and to the degree that males are pedophiles, for the same reason that few if any women are fetishists, and certainly not in the male sense. To quote Ernest Becker:

This brings up the longstanding problem of why so few females are fetishists, a problem that has been solved by Greenacre and Boss. Their point is that the male, in order to fulfill his species role, has to perform the sexual act. For this he needs secure self-powers and also cues to arouse and channelize his desires. In this sense, the male is naturally and inevitably a fetishist of some kind and degree…The female does not have this problem because her role is passive…(The Denial of Death, p. 243.) Put differently, and simply, men have penises and women vaginas.

Albeit not a pedophile, Epstein was obviously a strange and profoundly disturbed man -not so much because he had sex with dozens of young women ages 14-17 but because, after he was arrested, prosecuted, convicted under a plea-bargain, and sentenced to 13 months in jail with work-release privileges, he continued to have sex with young women under statutory age, knowing that is was ineluctable, a virtual 100% certainty, that he’d be arrested and prosecuted again.

And this time, also ineluctably, the prosecutors would not have offered him so indulgent a plea-bargain and he would have pled “not guilty” and gone to trial and almost surely been convicted of who knows how many felonies. And as a repeat offender, his sentence would have been so harsh and long that he would have died in prison even if he lived into his 80s, assuming he wasn’t murdered, well before he turned 70, strangled or beaten to death as are many sex offenders, especially those convicted, innocent or guilty, of crimes against children, including teenagers.

And that’s what occurred, probably, strangled to death by another inmate with the collusion, active or passive, of the guards, shortly after he was incarcerated, assuming he didn’t commit suicide. Such outrages are a prison tradition, preventable but condoned and often facilitated and encouraged by the authorities. Men convicted of sex crimes against children and adolescents, innocent or guilty, are the most hated of all inmates and by far the most likely to be murdered.

(“No woman convicted of a sex crime has ever been killed, but they’ve been beaten, usually under the guise of another dispute,” to quote an article in NASOL, 8-13-2019. So the chances of Abigail and similar women being murdered in prison are remote since no woman convicted of a sex crime against children or teenagers has ever been murdered in jail or prison, though it’s not impossible, but not so with their being assaulted, perhaps brutally and viciously and resulting in serious injuries. And Abigail is the most infamous, and probably the most despised, of all 2000-plus inmates, and thus more likely to be assaulted than most of the other inmates in security level II.)

In stark contrast, there has never been and will never be a female Jeffrey Epstein. Not only has no women ever had sex with dozens or likely even a few young men under age 16 or 18 -but also, unlike Epstein, it’s likely that not one woman sentenced to jail or prison for having sex with a young man under statutory age has re-offended by having sex with another young man under statutory age. If so, their recidivism rate is ZERO, as noted previously.

Ominously, despite such realities, what frightens and disturbs me the most about the obsession with and hysteria over Epstein and his excoriation and vilification as a “pedophile” is that it will surely confirm and justify and probably intensify the obsession with and hysteria over adult women and especially teachers having sex with biological men under statutory age and their excoriation and vilification as “rapists” and “pedophiles” and the resultant draconian/Orwellian punishments.

Currently, in the MSM, Epstein has superseded Mary Letourneau as the most infamous and opprobrious sex criminal. But how long with that last, for prior to Epstein and after the obsession with and mass hysteria over the “priestly pedophilia crisis,” which was the first time that adult were defined, falsely, as “pedophiles” for having sex with pubescent teenagers, the media and culture was far more obsessed with and hysterical over women teachers having sex with male students than with male teachers and other adult men, including violent and/or recidivist criminals, having sex with underage adolescent girls. And Mary was the symbol and avatar of that obsession and mass hysteria, as was Abigail Simon, to a lesser degree, almost 20 years later.

Because of Epstein, I fear, adult women and especially teachers who have sex with young men under statutory age (and it’s now a felony in most states for teachers to have sex with 18-year-old students) will be more rather than less likely to receive hideously draconian/Orwellian sentences. There will be more rather than fewer Abigails, Kathryn Ronks, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohalls, Shannon Schmeiders, Michelle Taylors, Melissa Bittners, Brittany Zamoras, etc.

Willie and Abigail: Fact and Fiction

12 Monday Nov 2018

Posted by in "anarcho-tyranny", "traumatization", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, Willie Horton, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters"

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Interviewed by The Nation, sympathetically and compassionately, Willie repined:

The fact is, my name isn’t “Willie.” It’s part of the myth of the case. The name irks me. It was created to play on racial stereotypes -big, ugly, dumb, violent, black- “Willie,” I resent that. They created a fictional character -who seemed believable, but who did not exist. They stripped me of my identity, distorted the facts, and robbed me of my constitutional rights.”

Yes, I’m sure no one has ever called him “Willie” -not his friends and classmates when he was a child and adolescent, nor his relatives, nor his acquaintances, including his criminal accomplices and fellow jail and prison inmates. I’m sure all address and have addressed him as “William” and usually as Mr. William R. Horton or Sir William R. Horton. The only times and places he’s ever been addressed as William Horton or Mister Horton and so forth is in court during his trials, pretrial hearings,and at sentencing, and in appeals and court documents, and on the news and in articles and interviews.

And, no, he’s not “big, ugly, dumb, violent,” nor even “black.” He’s tiny and frail, stunningly handsome, extremely intelligent, utterly non-violent, supremely civilized, and he’s  not even black or “African-American,” apparently, despite his appearance. And he didn’t stab a gas-station attendant 19 times during a robbery and then stuff his body in a garbage can where he bled to death. And when on furlough, in June of 1986, he didn’t fail to return to prison but fled to Maryland where, in April 1987, he “twice raped a woman after pistol-whipping, knifing, binding, and gagging her fiance,” torturing him for 7 hours, and then stole his car until he was shot and captured and sentenced to prison for life with no chance for parole and no furloughs. None of this happened, nor did any of the other violent and mala in se felonies and misdemeanors he surely committed, dozens I’m sure for which he wasn’t imprisoned, jailed, convicted, or even arrested and prosecuted, beginning at age 14 or 15 or even 13 or 12. All this is a “myth,” pure fiction, a distortion of the facts and his true identity and character.

He’s not only a low-IQ brute, savage, monster, and degenerate -he’s also a liar, as blatant as he’s shameless, and/or a psychotic, as are most black criminals. And the Nation treated him with dignity and respect and gave him a chance to lie about his crimes and whine about the denial of his “constitutional rights,” whatever that means exactly. He was also interviewed, no doubt credulously and sympathetically, in Playboy. And, obviously, the leftists at The Nation edited the interview to make this savage and monster appear intelligent, articulate, sympathetic, etc., and put “words in his mouth” so to speak. Did they actually believe all or any of his lies and actually believe he was completely innocent, of any or all of his crimes, a “fictional” monster created by Republicans to win a presidential election. The media turned him into a celebrity, and a victim of “racism” and “stereotypes,” worthy of compassion.

In contrast, the portrayal of Abigail by the media and criminal justice system -her vilification as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester,” a “predator” and monster who is a “threat to society” and to all the children of Michigan, so dangerous that she must be enslaved for 8-years, at least, and then subjected to a life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether and public registration as a uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminal, and the depiction of the young man who consented to or initiated sex with her and might have forced himself on her as a “victim” of CSA and “sexual assault” who’s “traumatized” and “scarred for life- all this is pure fiction.

 

 

Reality vs. Fantasy

03 Monday Sep 2018

Posted by in "traumatization", criminal sentences, CSA victimology, innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness, John Derbyshire, Debra Lafave, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Joseph Epstein on the generic nature of teenage males:

I have a special regard for studies that tell us that the way to reform calls for changing human nature. This study, apparently, also demonstrates that there is probably no such thing as a bad bully, that behind every bully is a lonely, confused boy, frequently ill-adjusted….Boys, surely by now everyone knows, are brutes. Between the ages of 12 and 18, no matter what their other achievements, they are chiefly interested in sex and talk about sex, in devouring large quantities of unhealthy food, and in playing games at which they can outwit, triumph over, and otherwise humiliate their fellows. Boys exist in a near Hobbesian state of nature. Modern life isn’t, thank goodness, nasty, brutish, and short. But boys, given free rein, would make it so. (“B is for Boy -and Bullies,” WSJ, 4-30-2000)

Generally, this is true, but with many exceptions, of course, including myself, in regard to bullying. And I was not a brute nor are myriads of other males ages 12-18. And males in their 20s are just as “interested in” and obsessed with sex both in their fantasies and in practice, especially as adults from age 18 on and often as adolescent “minors,” an interest and obsession that last into their 30s and 40s and 50s and 60s and beyond with the aid of Viagra and similar drugs.

And in regard to brutes and bullies, most of what he says is just as true of most males in their 20s and many who are older and brutes and bullies even in their 40s and 50s and 60s and beyond, e.g, military officers and jail and prison guards and police and coaches and bosses and fathers.

And a large minority of males are not only bullies and brutes but low-IQ savages and predators and psychopaths, violent and recidivist criminal who commit aggravated assaults, muggings, armed robberies, burglaries, acts of vandalism, home invasions, torture, rape, gang-rape, murder, etc., especially as teenagers, or even younger, beginning at puberty, and in their 20s.

And not “everyone” knows that boys are “brutes” by nature. Not the authors of the study he mentions and not CSA victimologists, obviously, and virtually all feminists and left-liberals/”progressives,” who believe the actions of boys and men are purely or largely an effect of male socialization which can be mitigated or abolished by egalitarian and enlightened socialization. Nor MRAs, the misogynist lunatics of the soi-disant “men’s movement, who are obsessed with proving that males are as good or better than females and that females are as bad or worse than males and just as abusive and violent or potentially abusive and violent.

To CSA victimologists, biological men under age 16 or 18 (and even 18-year-olds if the women is a teacher or tutor like Abigail Simon) who are “chiefly interested in sex and talk about sex” and who often talk of wanting to  have sex with adult females -what heterosexual adolescent doesn’t fantasize about having sex with adult females, e.g., various celebrities, teachers, neighbors, strangers, their mother’s friends, etc.- must be protected from such women by draconian/Orwellian punishments, the enactment and enforcement of laws and policies to prevent the realization of their fantasies.  Or, for those few who “get lucky,” to end the intrigues, and the “victims” gratification, by crucifying the women who gave them the sex they craved and enjoyed.  Or to ruin their lives weeks or months or years after the affair or tryst ended when the “victims” are now adults but still “traumatized,” “scarred for life” by sex they assented to or initiated, knowingly and willingly, in some cases by force and/or threats, and enjoyed far more than the women who “raped” and “molested” them.

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.

 

Age and Male Behavior

04 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by in innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Writes David T. Courtwright, under the sub-heading “Age and Male Behavior”:

Male behavior is most likely to be socially problematic in the late teens and twenties. This is the age range in which American men have been likeliest to kill or be killed, to set fires, filibuster, riot, vandalize, rob, and steal, and to abuse alcohol and other drugs. These are also the years in which reckless and intoxicated driving most frequently claim the lives of men. Young women die too, often a hapless passengers of negligent male drivers. (And also rape and gang-rape, M.K.)

The surest way to reduce crime, remarks the psychiatrist David T. Lykken, would be to put all able-bodied males between the age of twelve and twenty-eight into cryogenic sleep. He has a point. Though the medium age of arrest is subject to historic variation (it has gone down in the United Sates in the last century0, the arrest bulge invariably occurs in the teens and twenties and declines rapidly from the thirties on. (David T. Courtwright, “Violent Land,” p. 13.)

Lykken isn’t serious, of course. Putting high-IQ males ages 12-28 into “cryogenic sleep” would have disastrous consequences. But putting males ages 12-28 with IQ’s in the 70s and 30s and 90s would dramatically reduce the incidence of violence and criminality with few harmful consequences, especially as increasing numbers of menial jobs are performed by machines and robotics. And teachers, especially women, would be much safer. Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall and Melissa Bitter would not have been sexually-harassed, molested, and raped by criminals and biological men, age 15 and 16, and convicted of “sexual assault” and sentenced to prison and all the other draconian/Orwellian punishments. And few if any teachers, male and female, would be assaulted and murdered by male students.

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.