Category Archives: women as rapists

Paid For His Pleasure

17 Sunday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

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

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

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

Transformed By Testosterone: Child To Man

17 Sunday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Writes David T. Courtwright:

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

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

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

Because They’re Not “Pedophiles”

09 Saturday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Because They Are Not “Rapists”

08 Friday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

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

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

05 Tuesday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why She was/is Demonized, and Her Life Destroyed

23 Wednesday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

Grotesque, Howling, Psychotic Nonsense

22 Tuesday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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

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

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

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

CSA Victimology: Delusional, Ludicrous, Malignant

21 Monday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

08 Tuesday Mar 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

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

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

Cassandra’s “Victim”: Man and “Child”

06 Sunday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

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