Tag Archives: Abigail Simon

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: 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..

“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.

 

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).

The Age of Consent

27 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, age of consent, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

The generic age of consent is 16 in Michigan, as it is in many other jurisdictions. Consensual sex between “minors” of 16 and 17 and adults not in positions of authority over them is legal -even, apparently, for recidivist criminals who’ve been convicted of violent and other mala in se felonies but have never been convicted of a sexual offense, felony or misdemeanor. So, apparently, untold myriads of brutes and savages with histories of crime and violence beginning at age 12 or 13 or 14 and 10-20 or more felony convictions, even for murder, but who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense albeit most of them have raped and gang-raped men in jails and prison and/or women and adolescent girls in the free world, are free to have sex hundreds of times with dozens of 16-year-old girls in the state in which Abigail Simon was sentenced to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution.

If her “victim” had been 16 rather than 15, possibly just a few months or even weeks older, and she had not been his tutor or, apparently, a tutor at another school who was not in a position of authority over him, theoretically as opposed to factually, their affair (assuming he didn’t rape and terrorize her) would have been legal under Michigan law. And there is nothing his parents or anyone could have done, legally, to end it.

Also, he was 17 when she was convicted at trial of three counts of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct” and one count of “enticing a minor for immoral purposes.” If she had been acquitted, declared “not guilty” on all counts, they would have been free to hug and kiss in the courtroom, before the judge and jury and police and prosecutors, and his parents, and walk out the door and onto the street, possibly to check into a hotel to have sex in celebration.

 

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..