Category Archives: women sex offenders

women convicted of sex crimes

CSA Victimology: Delusional, Ludicrous, Malignant

21 Monday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cassandra: What if She had Reported the Sexual Assault?

08 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Cassandra, Uncategorized, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall: a life-sentence with no chance for surcease because of “overcaring and naivete” and bad judgement and misguided compassion for a biological man and criminal who harassed and molested and ultimately raped her. But even to condemn and rebuke her for bad judgement, both in not reporting the crime and then assenting to sex with the criminal who forced himself on her, is excessively harsh and “judgemental,” given the madness of a system ruled by fanatical CSA victimologists, inquisitorial quasi-religious dogmatists, and those they’ve converted or browbeat into silence and nonresistance: SVU detectives, prosecutors, judges, politicians, journalists, etc.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that she reported the crime to police. If so, her tormentor and assailant would have claimed that she was the initiator or a willing participant. And if they and the D.A. believed him, a “child,” rather than her, the adult -in such cases, usually I would presume, the imperative to “believe the child” overrides the imperative to “believe the woman”- she would have been charged with “sexual assault” for initiating or consenting to a single act of intercourse with a “child.” And if she plead “not guilty” and went to trial to tell her story to a “jury of her peers,” like Abigail Simon, she probably would have been convicted, like Abigail, and sentenced to more or far more time in prison than she received under a plea bargain. And, of course, all the other draconian and iniquitous and Orwellian penalties..

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.”

Are Biological Men Under Age 16 or Even 18 Too Young and Immature to Consent to or Initiate Sex with Adult Females?

04 Friday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

In felonious liaisons in which the “victims” are the aggressors and initiators of their phantasmal “victimization, ” the “victimizers” consented to sex with their “victims” or, in some instances, acquiesced out of fear. The “victims” did not assent to sex with their “victimizers.” So in these intrigues, what CSA victimologists actually mean is not that biological men under age 16 or even 18 are too young and immature to consent to sex with adult females, willingly and knowingly. What they mean is that they’re too young and immature to willingly and knowingly crave and initiate sex with adult females.

Empirically as opposed to theoretically, the objective fact of young men under age 16 or 18 assenting to or initiating sex with adult women or adolescent girls of similar age proves that they know what they’re doing and why even if they’re oblivious and indifferent to possible negative consequences -which is also true of adults if to a lesser degree. Pubescent teenage males under statutory age willingly and knowingly assent to and initiate sex with adult females and teenage girls under statutory age for the same reasons they willingly and knowingly rape and sexually assault myriads of adult females and adolescent girls each years in the United States alone and untold millions on all 6 continents: because the sex is thrilling, gratifying, empowering. And with most rapists, because they’re violent, and brutal, sadistic, vicious, depraved, just like “adult” men age 18 and older.

Clearly, if they’re old and mature enough to form the mens rea and criminal intent to commit rapes and other violent/mala in se  felonies -and even to be “waived” into adult court in many cases given the nature of their crimes and criminal records- than they’re old and mature enough to consent to and initiate sex with adult females.If they know what they’re doing, legally and morally, when they rape adult women and underage adolescent girls, then they know what they’re doing when they consent to and initiate sex with adult females. Fundamentally, it’s that simple.

Incongruosly, under the law,  they’re charged with felonies when they rape adult females -and possibly even “waived” into adult court if they have histories of violence beginning at age 12 or 13 or 14 and 5 or 10 or 20 prior felony  convictions, and/or if the rapes are distinctly brutal, sadistic, vicious, depraved. But when they have sex with adult females, they’re viewed as not even partly culpable, even if they’re the aggressors, the predators, the initiators. And even if they confess to sexually harassing, molesting, and raping the woman, as in the Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall case.

“Rape” as “Nonconsensual Sex”

03 Thursday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Not even those who demonize such women as “rapists” believe they have penises with which to anally penetrate their mythical and theoretical “victims.” And, to my knowledge, no teachers have been accused and convicted of using violence/force or threats of same -e.g., weapons such as knives or guns or their superior size and strength- to compel their “victims” to engage in sex-acts “against their will,” e.g., to penetrate the women who “raped” them. If so, they’d be more infamous than Mary Letourneau.

So what do they mean when they call such women “rapists”? They mean that the sex is nonconsensual. Like prepubertal children, pubescent teenage males under age 16 or even 18 are now seen as too young and innocent to consent to sex in a meaningful and comprehending sense.

First, even if this were true, describing such women as “rapists,” or even “statutory rapists,” would still be absurd given the realities of penile-vaginal penetration.

Secondly, in many if not most of these “crimes,” the woman isn’t even guilty of seduction. Either the “victim” was the aggressor and initiator or their sexual union could be described as a mutual coming together. So not only is she not a “rapist,” which is true in all such liaisons; she isn’t even a “sexual predator,” another epithet used to brand such women as perverse and dangerous, irrespective of the facts and circumstances.

And given the nature of young men under age 18 who are absurdly defined as “children” or, far less often but even more ludicrously, “little boys,” it’s reasonable to assume that in many if not most of these affairs the “victims” are the aggressors, the initiators, the predators. So, in many if not most intrigues, the “victims” do not assent (i.e., appear to consent since, according to CSA victimologists, they’re too young to actually consent) to sex with their “victimizers.” The “victimizers” consent to sex with their “victims.” Or, in some if not many instances, acquiesce out of fear. The issue of consent or assent relates to the passive and receptive actor.

And, in  some instances, the “victims” are the rapists and molesters. I’m aware of at least 5 cases in which I know or suspect (as probable or possible) that the woman was raped and/or molested by the “child” and “victim” she “raped” and/or “sexually assaulted” by engaging or allegedly engaging in acts of factually consensual intercourse or “sexual contact.” The paramount irony is that in these cases -and who knows how many others of which I know little or nothing- the only rapes, accurately defined, were committed by the “victims” of “rape” and “sexual assault.” The women were raped, in fact, by the “victims” they “raped” in theory and by definition.

 

“Statutory Rape”

01 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, age of consent, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

In some news articles, in the story and/or headlines, an editor or reporter, apparently recognizing the absurdity of defining such intrigues as “rape” and the women as “rapists,” will instead use the term “statutory rape.” As I’ll explain, such usage is not as absurd as “rape” but absurd nonetheless.

It’s important to emphasize that adult men who penetrate, and often impregnate, young women under age 16 or 18 in love affairs and dalliances and “one-night stands” are not “rapists” either, objectively defined, since they’re not guilty of using violence/force or threats of same to compel the submission of their de jure “victims.” That’s why, in the pre-feminist/”gender-neutral”/ sexual egalitarian “dark ages,” the offense was defined and codified as “statutory rape,” typically if not universally -not as “sexual assault,” “aggravated sexual battery,” “child rape, et.al, which imply violence- and the offense only applied to men in most jurisdictions. The purpose of such laws was to preserve the chastity and virginity of young women under age 18 and prevent their impregnation. Biological men under age 18 or of whatever age don’t get pregnant and only the silliest and looniest of prudes are obsessed with preserving the chastity and virginity of teenage males.

The modifying “statutory” denotes an absence of violence/force or threats of same -i.e., it reveals that the coitus was factually (as opposed to legally) consensual- while “rape” signifies the reality of penile-vaginal penetration, an act which only males can perpetrate. Thus even to define acts of coitus between adult women and biological men under age 16 or 18 as “statutory rape” and the women as “statutory rapists” is objectively false, given the nature of intercourse and the inescapably differences in anatomy between males and females, and thus absurd.

The definitions that imply violence/force or overt threats of same and the equal and “gender-neutral” application of such laws to young men under age 16 or 17 or 18 are based on the feminist dogma that males and females of whatever age are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and the premise that sex between young men and women under statutory age and adults at least 4-5 years older is inherently coercive and non-consensual, even if the “victims” are the aggressors and initiators of their “victimization,”and thus always deeply traumatizing, irrespective of the facts and circumstances, and even more so if the adult is in a position of authority.

Thus while the generic age of consent if 16 in most states and 17 and 18 in all others, consensual sex between teachers and other adults in positions of authority and 18-years-olds is now a felony in most jurisdictions.

Women as “Rapists”

29 Monday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

“(T)he male can rape the female, the female cannot rape the male,” so wrote Diana Trilling long ago. Her point is that rape entails not only the use of violence/force or threats of same to compel the submission of a victim but also the penile violation/penetration of the victim by the assailant. For obvious anatomical reasons, “the female cannot rape the male,” or other females, in the pure and literal sense of the word.

But we now live in a society in which adult women are defined and vilified 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, a grotesque and ludicrous perversion of language used to distort and invert reality for various reasons: ideological (CSA victimology), political (pandering politicians), economic (the “child sexual abuse industry”), and personal (the misogyny of MRAs).

Lunatic Extremes: Crucifyng the Benign and Coddling the Barbaric

27 Saturday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

From the Daily Caller:

An 18-year-old Somali immigrant to Sweden who violently raped a 12-year-old has been punished with a mere 180 hours of community service. (“Immigrant to Sweden Rapes 12-year-old Girl, Gets Community Service, ” by Blake Neff, June 3, 2015.)

Need one say anything?! A Somali immigrant who violently rapes a 12-year-old girl, almost surely prepubescent, is sentenced to 180 hours of community service (6 hours a day for 30 days or 3 hours a day for 60 days and what kind of “community service”?), and Abigail Simon was sentenced to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution for allegedly engaging in consensual sex with a biological man of 15 whom she claims was the aggressor in their sexual intrigue and forced himself on her.

In a sane world, one should say a sane “First-World,” the violent Somali rapist (doubtless a recidivist with a history of violence and criminality, sexual and nonsexual, probably in Sweden, if an alien for even a few months, and certainly in his native Somalia, beginning at age 12 or 13 or 14) would have been sentenced to 8-25 years in prison or 25-years to life or, better still, deported and sent back to the hell of Somalia, never to return to Sweden or the U.S. or any other “First-World” nation, and Abigail would have been charged with a misdemeanor and, if convicted, sentenced to 3-6 months of probation, and possibly 100-200  hours of community service. Or, better still, she would not have been charged with any crimes but punished, non-criminally, by dismissal and revocation of her licence and expulsion from the profession. And that’s assuming she’s lying and is “guilty” of the monstrous and inexpiable crime of transporting a biological man of 15 to sexual paradise..

The U.S. is sui generis its lunacy and hysteria and fanaticism

24 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, age of consent, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

The United States is sui generis in its lunacy and hysteria and fanaticism in punishing adults who have love affairs and mere trysts with biological men and women under statutory age: under age 16 in those states in which the generic age of consent is 16; under age 17 in those states in which the generic age of consent is 17; under age 18 in those states in which the generic age of consent is 18 and in all states in which the adult is in a position of authority even if the “victim” was the aggressor and initiator and the authority was not misused to coerce or manipulate the “victim” into submitting to “unwanted sex.” In most if not all jurisdictions, consensual sex between 18-year-old students and teachers is now a felony as is sex between adults and priests and others in positions of authority such as prison guards and mental health professionals.

In Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations whose systems of “justice” are based on “Sharia Law,” a woman like Abigail would be stoned to death or beheaded: not because she had sex a 15-year-old biological man -after all, the youngest of the prophets many wives and sex-slaves was six when they “married” and nine when their sacred union was consummated- but because she had sex outside of marriage. And perhaps her partner, despite his age, would also be so dispatched.

In few if any other nations, excluding Islamic countries in which she’d be brutally, hideously, sadistically tortured and executed in public, would she and myriads of other men and women guilty of the same “crimes” have received a sentence and punishment, in its totality, i.e., imprisonment and all the post-incarceration penalties, even remotely as draconian and Orwellian/Kafkaesque. In no other nation, including Muslim countries, would she have received a prison sentence of 8-25 years and a life sentence of draconian/Orwellian persecution.

In no other “first-world” country -Japan, South Korea, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and European nations in which feminists are powerful and influential, would she have received  a sentence and punishment, as a whole, even remotely as draconian and Orwellian/Kafkaesque: 8-25 years in prison, years of “sex-offender treatment by charlatans and inquisitors who don’t know the difference between males and females and biological children and pubescent teenagers under age 16 or even 18; years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration surveillance, and a lifetime of public sex offender registration and electronic parole monitoring.

As noted previously, the “unspeakable” crimes for which she was sentenced to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution are legal acts or misdemeanors in dozens of other nations, including European countries

 

 

 

 

 

.