Tag Archives: Abigail Simon

A Judge Dismisses the Lawsuit Against the Catholic Diocese

22 Monday May 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Writes John Tunison at mlive.com:

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids and three Catholic school employees filed by the teen sexual assault victim of tutor Abigail Simon…Attorneys for the teen -who was a 15-year-old Catholic Central High School student when he had sexual encounters with tutor Abigail Simon- have filed an appeal with the state Court of Appeals…In late 2015, the teen filed a lawsuit against the Diocese, Grand Rapids Catholic Secondary School and three administrators, claiming not enough was done to prevent Simon from abusing the teen.

But Kent County Circuit Judge George Quist granted a motion to dismiss the case. In a written opinion, Quist disagreed with claim that school officials knew or should have known that Simon was involved in relations with the teen. “By plaintiff’s own testimony, no school staff member saw or had reason to believe that he and Simon were engaged in a sexual relationship,” Quist wrote….In the lawsuit, the teen sought damages of at least $25,000 from the schools and the administrators. (mlive.com, 3/15-2017.)

Obviously, if there was any evidence to support the allegations in this lawsuit against the Diocese and “three administrators” -that “school staff members” knew that Abigail was having sex with the football star and other male students at two high schools and “accosting” minors for “immoral purposes” but didn’t inform the authorities- the judge would not have dismissed the lawsuit. So, apparently, the allegations were all lies and exaggeration -apart from Abigail having sex with the young man, assuming he didn’t force himself on her, and exchanging hundreds of emails and text messages- as I argued in my post “Abigail is Sued by Her ‘Victim’.”

Good news for the Diocese, but not for Abigail?

The Michigan Supreme Court ruling that mandatory minimum sentences were “unconstitutional” and the appellate court decision upholding her convictions but ordering a re-sentencing should have resulted in her release from prison on “time-served” or at least a sentence of 3-4 years with “time-served” and also the overturning of her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet.” But, deplorably, the judge who had no discretion but to impose the mandatory-minimum sentence of 8-25 years in prison and all the other penalties now had the discretion to impose a far less punitive sentence but instead chose to uphold her grotesquely draconian/Orwellian sentence.

Apart from cravenness, which was paramount (as I explained in the previous article on Abigail’s re-sentencing), another reason the judge might have upheld her draconian/Orwellian sentence -not only that of 8-25 years in prison but also the life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring- is that he believed all or most of the accusations in the lawsuit filed against the Catholic Diocese and Abigail by her “victim.”

If this is true, at least to some degree, however large, then his view of Abigail as a “predator” who deserved to be imprisoned for at least 8-years if not longer and subjected to a life-sentence of electronic-monitoring was based on lies and exaggerations.

“…not enough was done to prevent Simon  from abusing the teen.” If the “victim” experienced acts of coitus and fellatio and so forth with Abigail and also the hundreds of emails and texts they exchanged as “abusive” rather than thrilling and gratifying and empowering, all he had to do was end the relationship. And if Abigail was the initiator and aggressor, all he had to do was say “no” and he would not have been “abused” by having sex with an attractive and desirable woman. We’re supposed to believe that a 6’3″, 220 lb. biological man and football star was so terrified of Abigail because of her age and power and authority -when he outweighed her by almost a 100 pounds and was at least 6-8 times stronger in the upper-body- that he was too afraid to say no, initially, and repel her importunities, assuming she was the “aggressor,” and then too fearful to end the relationship. And, also, that he was too young and immature to consent to or initiate sex, knowingly and willingly, with an adult female. (I discuss this at length in “More on Traumatization” and also in many other article/blog-posts.)

Assuming she’s lying, the reason he assented to or initiated sex with Abigail and didn’t end the affair is because the sex was thrilling and gratifying and empowering. And so, too, the hundreds of emails and text-messages. And even if he didn’t rape and terrorize her, even if he never forced himself on her, it’s not only possible, I’d say it’s likely, that he was the aggressor. And even if Abigail was the initiator, it’s reasonable to assume that she was responding, usually if not always, to his messages, not vice-versa, probably because she didn’t want to have sex with him as she testified in court and told the police and prosecutors. If so, she was telling the truth about his “controlling her life,” essentially, and perhaps also as to her fearing him, though with lies and exaggerations.

Judge Twice Upholds Her 8-25 Year Prison Sentence and Life-Sentence of Electronic Parole-Monitoring

07 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, appeal, Barton Dieters, criminal sentences, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Judge who sentenced Abigail to 8-25 years in prison had two opportunities -first after the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that mandatory-minimum sentences with “unconstitutional” and then after a Court of Appeals decision that upheld her conviction but ordered a re-sentencing- to release her with “time-served” or sentence her to “only” 2 or 3 or 4 years in prison with “time-served, in which case she would have been released from prison in January of 2017 or 2018 or 2019.

At sentencing on January 14, 2015, he had no discretion, no choice to impose a sane and just and condign and rational sentence. He now had the discretion to overturn the sentence of 8-25-years in prison he was constrained to impose in January of 2015 and to exercise the options mentioned above and also the discretion to vacate the life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” she can never remove. But he twice upheld the sentence of 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring. I don’t know if he had the discretion to overturn the life-sentence of public sex-offender registration, imposing a sentence of only 20-30 years of public registration. But if he did have such discretion, I’m sure he would have also upheld this sentence.

At sentencing on January 15, 2015, in explaining why he chose to impose the mandatory-minimum sentence of “only” 8-25 years in prison rather than the maximum of 25-years to life for a first-offender convicted of a nonviolent and victimless and malum prohibitum “crime,” the judge noted that Abigail was not a “predator” who was likely to re-offend and that her “victim” also knew their affair was “wrong” and was thus partly responsible. Thus, at the time, he was not a CSA victimologist.

For these comments, merely a bit of honesty and realism compared to what I would have said in his place and have written on this matter in general and specifically on  the insane and execrable laws of Michigan and Abigail’s sentence, I’m sure he was not only criticized, not only rebuked, respectfully, but also condemned, denounced, traduced, vilified, and probably subjected to a barrage of hate-mail and possibly a few if not more than a few death-threats.

In July of 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that mandatory-minimum sentences were “unconstitutional” -theoretically in violation of the 6th rather than 8th Amendment.

And in August, roughly a month later, in justifying his decision to uphold her 8-25 year prison sentence and her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet,” he now argued (whether sincerely, having been “re-educated,” or insincerely out of fear and cravenness and pure self-interest) that she was a “predator” who can never be cured but only deterred by imprisonment, at least 8-years of enslavement, and then by a lifetime of quasi-totalitarian surveillance, a “predator” who was surely or likely to re-offend by having sex with young men under statutory age and, perhaps, also molesting prepubescent children. I wonder if he described her as a “rapist” and “pedophile” or, at least, a “child molester” and/or “child sexual abuser”?

He now realized or affected to believe that she was so dangerous, such a threat to all the children of Michigan and the other 49 states and the entire world should she be allowed to move or travel after her release from prison, that she deserved to be enslaved for at least 8-years if not longer and also forced to wear an electronic ankle-tether/”bracelet” that she can never remove by herself, not even when bathing or having sex with a lover if the state of Michigan and other jurisdictions permit such relationships, and which can only be removed, finally and officially, I assume by people in roles of authority, when she dies at age 77 or 86 or 94 or 102.

Our great good friend, Barton Deiters, who can barely conceal and contain his joy and approval and tendentiousness, writes:

A judge says the former Catholic Central High School tutor convicted of having illegal sex with her 15-year-old student was not denied a fair trial and does not deserve to be re-sentenced.

Kent County Circuit Judge Paul Sullivan also rejected the contention of Abigail Simon’s attorney that she should not be required to wear an electronic tether for the rest of her life.

Sullivan also shot down Teiber’s request that the state-mandated lifetime electronic tether requirement be lifted because she was not a threat of re-offend. Tieber argued that the electronic monitoring violated his client’s privacy and Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and was “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Sullivan dispatched both arguments, saying that the public’s safety outweighed the minimal intrusion into Simon’s privacy.”Additionally, the invasiveness of a GPS monitoring devise can seem relatively minimal compared to the often lifelong effects these types of crimes can have on victims.”

“Shot down,” “dispatched,” what a joke! Yes, the “public’s safety outweighs the minimal intrusion” into the privacy of a woman who never committed a violent or other malum in se crime in her life and never will and is not a “threat to society” and “public safety” or to anyone nor even a danger to “re-offend” by  transporting another biological man under age 16 to carnal Elysium -and that’s assuming she lying about his forcing himself on her and “controlling her life.”

Deiters concludes:

Simon remains in the Huron Valley Women’s Correctional facility, where she is serving out her eight to 25-year prisons sentence.

Her case has been filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which will likely hear her arguments within the next six to eight months. (“See why Judge says Catholic School Tutor does not deserve a new sex assault trial,” mlive.com., Aug. 13, 2015.)

Almost a year later, in June of 2016, the Court of Appeals upheld her convictions and also her life-sentence of electronic monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Abigail Simon, but says Kent County Judge Paul Sullivan should determine if she should get a different sentence…After Simon’s conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court changed the way those sentencing guideline are applied, allowing judges to use them only as a recommendation…In it’s ruling Thursday, the Michigan Court of Appeals sent Simon’s case back to judge Sullivan who will determine if, using the updated guidelines as as guide, Sullivan would give Simon a different sentence…The Court of Appeals also rejected Simon’s claim that lifetime electronic monitoring after her release from prison was unconstitutional. (woodtv.com, 6/17/2016)

Once again, as after the Supreme Court decision, Sullivan uphold her sentence of 8-25 years in prison and her life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring.

 

 

Beyond Insanity: Anarchy in Chicago

16 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by in "anarcho-tyranny", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, criminal sentences, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

From the Guardian:

As violence rises, an increasing number of shootings and murders are going unsolved. Through 28 August, the police department had only made arrests in 73 of the nearly 2,000 non-fatal shooting incidents so far this year -or just under 4%, according to a department spokesman.

The clearance rate for murders is not much better…Police have only made arrests in about 16% of fatal shootings through 28  August this year…Through June, the clearance rate for all murders was 22.2%…(Lois Beckett and Justin Glawe, “Gun Violence, unsolved murders put Chicago on course to set grim record,” 9-4-2016.)

And I’m sure that over 90% of these murders and shootings were committed by violent recidivists who should have been in prison rather than free to commit well over 2,000 shootings, fatal and non-fatal, and other violent and mala in se crimes. And what percentage have histories of crime and violence beginning at ages 14 or 13 or even 12, whatever the age of puberty and biological manhood, and have committed dozens and scores of violent and predatory crimes, from murder and rape to burglary and vandalism, and should have been buried in prison years ago, at least until the age of 30 or 40 or 50, depending on the nature of their crimes and recidivism and number of felony convictions. Illinois abolished the death penalty in 2011.

And of the 16% arrested for murder and the less than 4% arrested for non-fatal shootings, what percentage will be prosecuted? And of those prosecuted, what percentage will be convicted? And of those convicted, virtually all in plea-bargains, what percentage will be incarcerated? And of those incarcerated, what percentage will be sentenced to decades or years in prison rather than months in jail?

And the failure or refusal to arrest, prosecute, convict, and imprison over 95% of those who committed all these murders and shootings will result in myriads of other violent and mala in se crimes, including aggravated assaults, muggings, armed robberies, burglaries, acts of vandalism, home invasions, abductions, rapes, gang-rapes, and murders committed against men and women who aren’t criminals and are thus innocent victims.

And what percentage are these brutes and savages are young men ages 13-17 who are absurdly defined as “children” and even “little boys.” But if a woman teacher engages in coitus and/or fellatio or even a single act of ‘sexual contact” with one of these violent predators, she’ll be arrested (I’m certain the arrest rate is over 90% for such intrigues), and prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to months in jail or years (perhaps even decades) in prison and a lifetime or at least 20-30 years of draconian/Orwellian persecution.

Yes,”anarcho-tyranny” in Illinois. Once again: to call all of this insane is an understatement. It’s beyond insanity.

Dorothy Rabinowitz and Philip Jenkins

23 Wednesday Nov 2016

Posted by in "traumatization", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, age of consent, Cassandra, CSA victimology, Kathryn Ronk, Melissa Bittner, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

To understand the enslavement and persecution of Abigail Simon, Kathryn Ronk, Melissa Bittner, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, Mary Letourneau, and myriads of other victims, male and female, of the jihad against “child sexual abuse,” I suggest you read Dorothy Rabinowitz’s “No Crueler Tyrannies,” a devastating critique of the “ritual sex abuse hoax,” the “mass-molestation” day-care and interfamilial “sex-ring” cases, and Philip Jenkins’ “Moral Panic,” especially those sections that discuss the mass-psychosis and hysteria and “moral panic” and witch-hunt that began in the 1970’s with the feminist crusade against an “epidemic” of “date/acquaintance” rape, and then in the 80’s and 90’s with the cases above in which hundreds of men and women were sentenced to prison for acts of child sexual abuse they not only didn’t commit but which never even happened.

And, despite an end to much or most of the lunacy above, the witch-hunt prevails to this day and shows no signs of abating in the near future if ever in my lifetime, but now with an emphasis on what was once defined and codified as “statutory rape,” i.e. consensual sex between adults and young men and women under statutory age, most sensationally and punitively the media obsession with and legal crucifixion of women teachers who transport biological men under age 18 to sexual paradise. Roughly half of the people on the sex-offender registry, now almost a million and growing steadily, were convicted of engaging in consensual sex-acts with pubescent teenagers under age 16 or even 17 and 18. Of which much more later.

Fantasy and Reality

08 Tuesday Nov 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

All heterosexual males under age 18 fantasize, weekly or daily or even hourly, of having sex with adult females: actresses, singers, teachers, the woman next door or across the street, women they see in parks, malls, restaurants, downtown, at the beach, concerts, sporting events, in their neighborhoods, etc. But few are lucky enough to have their fantasies realized.

If young men under age 16 or 18 were not virgins when they had sex with adult females who were at least 4-5 years older, if they engaged in coitus or fellatio or whatever with underage girls of comparable age, then they knew exactly what to expect before having sex with adult females. The reason is that such acts are exactly the same whether the female is 15 or 25 or 35 or older. Coitus, for example, feels the same or a bit less or more gratifying, depending on the woman’s vagina and her words and actions during love-making, her appearance, and the environment, e.g., a bedroom with soft music and candle-light as opposed to a parked car on a cold winter or hot summer night.

And if they were virgins before they had sex with adult females, the experience in most cases is just as if not even more pleasurable, physically and psychologically, than they envisaged.

Generally, for a biological man under age 16 or 18 to have sex with an adult woman is more exciting, gratifying, empowering, whether or not he’s a virgin, given her age and experience, than having sex with a girl his age or a bit older or younger. And having sex with an adult woman who is sexy and attractive is more pleasurable, emotionally, than having sex with a girl of 15 or 16 who is not sexy and attractive. And even more so if the woman is ravishing and gorgeous like Debra Lafave and Pamela Rogers or lovely and feminine like Mary Kay Letourneau.

In such intrigues, the paramount reality is not that the “criminal,” the “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester,” is an adult who is at least 4-5 years older than her de jure and phantasmal “victim.” The paramount reality is that her “victim” is a pubescent teenager who, biologically as opposed to legally and ideologically, is not a “child” but a man with sexual compulsions, fantasies, impulses, desires, just like men in their 20’s and 30’s and beyond, though far more galvanic, intense, and obsessive than those of old and middle-aged men.

This explains why young men in their teens and 20’s, including those under age 16 or 18 who are defined as “children” and deemed to be “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by consenting to or initiating sex with adult females, commit far more rapes than men in their 30’s and 40’s and beyond.

If biological men under statutory age are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by having sex with adult females who are at least 4-5 years older, then why aren’t they “traumatized” and scarred for life” by raping and gang-raping adult women in the their 20’s and 30’s and 40’s?

And to ask once again: precisely how does a woman being an adult and at least 4-5 years older magically render the sex “traumatizing” for a young man under age 16 or even 18 who eagerly consents to or aggressively initiates the sex which “traumatizes” him in the psychotic imaginations of CSA victimologists?

Truth from the “Maestro”

05 Saturday Nov 2016

Posted by in "traumatization", Abigail Simon, CSA victimology, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The “Maestro,” commenting at RSOL:

You may not like what I’m about to say but someone needs to start speaking REALITY and not “Law & Order: SVU” lingo…? Here goes…I know there are people who are actually sexually abused. However, that is not the case with most of the sex “offenses” that people are on the registry for. If you watch the local and national news when people are arrested for sex offenses, 9 times out of 10 it’s a consensual relationship between an older person and a person a year of so shy of legal age of consent. It’s also a lot of legal age of consent students having relationships with teachers and because the older person is in a position of “power” the relationship is deemed “illegal.” This is HARDLY “abuse.”

…We never hear from the protected “alleged” victims. We get people speaking for them…I was 15 when I sowed my wild oats with an older woman (legal age here is 16) so technically I’m a “victim.” I enjoyed every moment of it and wanted to do it again but she declined after the one and only time. I do NOT want ANYONE speaking for me saying that I was sexually abused and forever damaged by something that comes NATURAL to ALL animal life (and yes, we ARE a form of animal.)

“There have been plenty of stories of ‘victims’ marrying their so-called ‘abusers’ after the person served their time…” Then he mentions all the young men and women under statutory age “who LIED about their ages and even tried to admit to the courts that it was their own fault and yet the older person was still held accountable and the younger person declared a ‘victim’ who must be ‘protected’ from the accused.

(T)he legal ages of consent are MADE UP by lawmakers. It’s not something made by any “higher power”…The people who made these laws can easily change them. They can bring the legal age up or down by a year or two. Here in Connecticut the legal age is 16. Cross the state line into New York and suddenly the legal age is 17.

I once read a news article about a couple who was…married or engaged…The female was 16 (the legal age in their state) and the male was 20+ or so. The moved to another state for his job and her future college…Well…the state they moved to had a high age of consent law so guess what happened…They found out and he got arrested. And she was considered a “victim” in a relationship that was already existing in their home state…My idea of “abuse” is not a consensual relationship with a post-pubescent teenager…(nationalrsol.org. 9-23-2016.)

 

Security Levels: Why II rather than I?

26 Wednesday Oct 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, prison security levels, Uncategorized, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

In Michigan prisons, male inmates are “housed” in four security levels: I, II, IV, and V. Females are “housed” in three security levels: I, II, and IV. Amazingly, the authorities are honest enough to realize that few if any women are so violent and dangerous as to be “housed” in level V. And so they violated, rationally, as with a few other exceptions, the sacrosanct dogmas of “gender-neutrality” and undifferentiated equality

Apparently, the penal bureaucrats of Michigan think the use of Roman numerals rather than numbers is classy and sophisticated, and they’re prejudiced, arbitrarily and inexplicably, against Roman numeral III. Why not levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 for males, and 1,2, and 3 for women?

Of the 2000-plus inmates in Michigan’s only distaff slave-camp, Abigail is likely the most intelligent, educated, and civilized, and surely one of the 5-10 most intelligent, educated, and civilized. Yet she’s enslaved in security level II rather than I, where she’d be “housed” with the likes of Martha Stewart and Teresa Giudice and other women who don’t belong in prison or at least aren’t violent and dangerous and likely to assault other prisoners.

The only reason she’s enslaved in level 2 rather than 1 is because she’s a “convicted sex-offender,” albeit she’s more intelligent, educated, and civilized than 95-100% of those in level 1.

A correspondent, in response to an email I sent him, noted that she’s in level 2 for two reasons: the length of her sentence in addition to her being convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. But the reason she was sentenced to 8-25 years in prison is because she was convicted at trial of 3 count of first-degree CSC. At sentencing, the judge had no discretion to impose a sane and just and condign and rational punishment, not that he would have done that, or one less harsh, e.g., “only” 2-4 or 4-6 years, assuming he would have done that. And thus he imposed the mandatory-minimum of 8-25 years in prison rather than the even more insanely draconian and excessive maximum-sentence of 25-years to life for a first-offender convicted of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita “crimes”: yes, an act of “leniency,” merciful and magnanimous, comparatively, under the “new-age” dark-age sex-crime laws of liberal/progressive Michigan. So the two reasons she’s in level 2 rather than 1 are actually one reason.

“Ed” comments at RSOL

24 Monday Oct 2016

Posted by in "sex-offender treatment", "traumatization", Abigail Simon, age of consent, CSA victimology, sex offender registry, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“Ed” denounces the lunacy and iniquity of SO laws and mandatory “treatment” -if only for adult men who have sex with young women under age 16 or 18 who are falsely defined as “children”: the pseudo-science, the delusions, the canards, the lies. And also the greed, mandatory psycho-therapy as a “racket” and business that critics deride as the “child sexual abuse industry.”

Most of our RSOL’s time is spent fighting the public registry and residency restrictions for former SOs; we should also be fighting mandatory treatment for those simply guilty of journalistic curiosity. I am currently fighting this battle alone. But I am armed with excellent scholarly articles that point up all the recent research into the serious flaws built into the sex offender laws as relating to “deviance” and the law supervised release standards that mandate “treatment.” There are a goodly number of RSOs who are not mentally ill and who do not have paraphilias of any sort. We may be on supervised release, but we have a fundamental constitutional right to refuse so-called “treatment” that is neither wanted nor needed by those who get their living by providing it.

Personally, I fail to see “deviance” in any straight heterosexual male of any age who can appreciate the beauty and grace of young women who are biological adults in terms of secondary sex characteristics but are currently under age legally. Today the law sees them as “children” and “victims” if any male they become sexually involved with is more than four years older than them. This is an insane situation and a contradiction in and of itself of natural law, as evidenced by the results of the latest scientific research.

This research is currently unaccepted by all in the prison industrial complex who are engaged in profiting by casting a very wide net over anyone convicted of a sexual offense. If the necessary and progressive legislative corrections are ever made in the criminal justice system, those providing treatment will lose half their clientel and thus half their income. It is now as it has always been -all about the money….(RSOL, “Success at NACDL Seminar,” nationalrsol.org/blog, 11-28-2015)

I replied:

Excellent points, Ed. I fully concur. Mandatory “sex-offender treatment” for adults who have sex with young men and women under age 16 or even 18 is travesty and iniquity, irrational and gratuitous. “Treatment” for what, precisely and specifically, heterosexuality? Heterosexual adults are attracted to young men and women under age 18 for the same reason they’re attracted to men and women of 18 and 19 and to those in their 20s and 30s and 40s and beyond.

People can argue, reasonably, that having sex with those under age 16 is “wrong” and “immoral” and “inappropriate” and, for teachers, unprofessional. I, for one, wouldn’t even say that in many instances. But such acts per se are not “deviant” in the sense of being aberrant or unnatural. And, consequently, adults who have sex with young men and women under age 16 or even 18 are not afflicted with some kind of serious “disorder” or “paraphilia” that requires months and years of psycho-therapy and “sex-offender treatment.” mandatory and punitive and degrading, both in and out of jails and/or prisons, and conducted by fanatics and mountebanks, or simply greedy opportunists. Yes, the “child sexual abuse industry.”

If adults who have sex with young men and women under age 16 or even 18 are afflicted with a disorder and “paraphilia” and thus in need of psycho-therapy, then so are adults who are attracted to young men and women under age 16 or even 18 even if they don’t have sex with them, which includes almost everyone, male and female, heterosexual and homosexual, everyone but pedophiles, true pedophiles, who are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children, girls or boys. If such people are “pedophiles,” then everyone is a “pedophile” with the exception of authentic pedophiles.

And the laws and policies he assails as insane and unjust are even more so when applied to women who transport young men under age 18 to carnal elysium. And even to those who were sexually-harassed, molested, sexually-assaulted, and raped by their “victims,” like Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, Melissa Bittner, and possibly Abigail Simon.

 

More on the Age of Consent

03 Saturday Sep 2016

Posted by in "traumatization", Abigail Simon, age of consent, CSA victimology, Kathryn Ronk, sex offender registry, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

If adult men in their 20’s and 30’s and 40’s and beyond -including, apparently, violent and recidivist criminals who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense- are free to have sex with hundreds of 16- and 17-year-old females and/or males, then how can can male and female teachers who have sex with 16- and 17-year-old students be charged with “third-degree criminal sexual conduct,” a life-shattering felony with a maximum sentence of 6-15 years in prison, and sentenced to months in jail, if lucky, or years in prison and all the other draconian/Orwellian punishments, including registration for life or at least 20-30 years and all that that entails in respect to privacy and freedom and hate-mail and death-threats, by mail or in person, hostility and ostracism, and possibly even violence or vandalism.

To those of us who are sane and just and rational, if it’s legal for adults to have sex with young men and women of 16 and 17 if not in positions of authority over them, then teachers who have sex with students of 16 and 17 should be simply punished, non-criminally, by dismissal and the revocation of their licenses and expulsion from the profession.

Apparently, in the view of those who wrote and enacted these laws with such exceptions and distinctions in states like Michigan in which the generic age of consent is 16, females of 16 and 17 are old and mature enough to consent to sex with males 5 or 10 or 20 years older and are not “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by acts of coitus and fellatio or whatever -even with criminals, apparently, who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense and are inclined to be abusive in noncriminal ways- but male students of 16 and 17 and now even 18 who have sex with female teachers are not old and mature enough to consent simply because the woman is in a position of authority over them -even if her authority is not misused in any sense to coerce or manipulate her “victim” into engaging in “unwanted sex against his will,” and even if he was the aggressor and initiator and she acquiesced out of fear and even if he harassed and molested and raped her before she acquiesced, and thus he is harmed, profoundly and permanently, and she must be punished, severely and for the rest of her life or at least for 20-30 years.

Reflections on the Age of Consent

02 Friday Sep 2016

Posted by in CSA victimology, Kathryn Ronk, sex offender registry, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Under Michigan law and the laws of other states in which the generic age of consent is 16 but sex with 15-year-old’s is a felony, it’s legal for adult men ages 18 to 80 to have sex with girls the moment the clock strikes 12AM on their 16th birthdays if they aren’t in a position of authority over them. And, apparently, this includes those convicted of violent and other mala in se felonies, even dozens or scores of them, but who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense. (I’m not sure of this but, so far, internet searches have not answered my questions.)

But, in Michigan, a 20-year-old woman who has sex with a young man a day or hour or minute before he turns 16 is guilty of “third-degree criminal sexual conduct,” a felony with a maximum sentence of 6-15 years in prison and all the extra/post incarceration punishments, including registration for life or at least 20-30 years as a uniquely monstrous and degenerate criminals, theoretically more dangerous than myriads of brutes and savages with histories of crime beginning at age 13 or 14 or 15 who’ve committed dozens and scores of violent and other mala in se crimes but who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense albeit most of them have surely raped and/or gang-raped men in jails and prisons and/or women and girls in the “free world.”

And if the woman is in a position of authority over him, a teacher or tutor, like Abigail Simon and Kathryn Ronk, she’s guilty of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” punishable by a mandatory-minimum of 8-25 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 25-years to life and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration and electronic parole monitoring with a ankle-tether/”bracelet -if, like Abigail, one spurns a number of plea-bargains and  is convicted at trial of first-degree CSC., even one “count” rather than several.

Clearly, if de facto consensual sex between 15-year-olds and adult men and women is so heinous a crime that those who aren’t in positions of authority over them are guilty of “third-degree criminal sexual conduct” and subject to all the penalties above, and those who are in positions of authority over them could be sentenced to 25-years to life in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution, then how can sex between 16-year-olds and adults not in positions of authority over them be legal?

And, conversely, if consensual sex between 16-year-olds and adults not in positions of power over them is legal -even, apparently, for violent and/or recidivist criminals who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense- then how can adult men and women who have sex with 15-year-olds be charged with felonies and sentenced to months in jail or years in prison and all the other draconian/Orwellian punishments? And how can Abigail Simon be sentenced to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration and electronic parole monitoring?

What’s the difference between the average 16-year-old and the average 15-year-old? Virtually nothing, generally, and in respect to sexuality, absolutely nothing. Moreover, there are millions of 14- and 15-year-olds who are more or far more intelligent, mature, and sexually experienced, sophisticated, and “active” than millions of 16- and 17-year-old’s. To say nothing of the differences, physically and psychologically, between the sexes.

Clearly, to those of us who are sane and just and rational, if factually consensual sex between 16-year-olds and adults not in positions of authority over them is legal but sex between adults and young men and women under age 16 must be criminalized, as I concede for the sake of argument, then I would argue that such acts be criminalized not as felonies but as misdemeanors -at least for adults who’ve never been convicted of violent and other mala in se crimes– and a sentence of probation should be mandatory for all first-offenders: 3-6 months of probation with perhaps 50-100 hours of some kind of “community service,” but without the current restrictions on freedoms and intrusions into private lives that don’t apply to violent recidivists who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense; no prison, no jail, no electronic parole monitoring, no public sex-offender registration; and no”sex-offender treatment”: years of psycho-therapy, usually by quacks and zealots and psychotics, and often iatrogenic, to “treat” the offenders for what precisely, what perversion,”paraphilia,”or “disorder,” heterosexuality?

All jurisdictions from nations to states must have an age of consent -whether 16 or 17 or 18 as in all U.S. states, or 14 or 15 as in many other nations, including European countries, or 13 in some nations, including Spain until just recently, or 12 as in Mexico- and some degree of arbitrariness and inequity and hair-splitting is ineluctable -but this is insane.