Tag Archives: innate sex differences

Does Abigail Know that Feminism is Culpable, Seminally and Predominantly, for Destroying her Life?

04 Tuesday Oct 2022

Posted by in "sex-offender treatment", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, feminism, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

As noted previously, in a few posts, Abigail was prohibited from receiving and reading a letter and articles I sent to the Huron Valley Correctional Facility. To the authorities, my words were a “threat to security, good order, or discipline.”

Did the left-feminist ideologues and totalitarians who rule the prison and the lives of inmates believe that Abigail would have gone berserk and attacked the guards and/or other inmates, perhaps inciting a riot or mass revolt, had she been allowed to read my heterodox and “politically-incorrect” arguments and contentions? Or simply that they would have vitiated the efficacy of her “sex-offender treatment”?

So, in effect, I’m a victim of censorship, denied the right to correspond with Abigail and ask her many questions about her intrigue with a 15-year-old student and biological man, her phantasmal and theoretical “victim” whom she claims forced himself on her three times and “controlled her life” by threats and manipulation; her arrest, prosecution, trial, why she rejected the plea-bargains, her life in jail and prison; her life, especially as an adult, before it was shattered, forever and needlessly, by the criminal injustice system; her ideals, values, and opinions on various issues and subjects: e.g., what did she think of Mary Letourneau and her affair with a student and her sentence of 8-years in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration. What did she think of such laws and penalties, to the extent that she was aware of them, before they ruined her life?

Like most educated women, the overwhelming majority, alas,, I presume that Abigail is a left-liberal, probably more liberal than extreme/radical left, though I could be wrong. And, moreover, that she defines and thinks of herself as a feminist, however defined, broadly or narrowly, vaguely or precisely, accurately or inaccurately. If so, does she know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life.

In pre-feminist America, including the 1960s, the decade of  the “sexual revolution,” “statutory rape” laws didn’t even apply to women in most jurisdictions. And if they did so apply to women in some states or if women who had sex with young men under age 16 or 18 were guilty of a “moral’s offense,” however defined, how many women were arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail or prison for such offenses? (Read my blog-post on Kirk Douglas) And how many were sentenced to 8-25 years in prison, like Abigail, or 6-15 years, like Kathryn Ronk, or enslaved for 8-years, like Mary Letourneau; or 40-years, like Shannon Schmeider, with a chance for parole after “only” 20 years; or life with a chance for parole after “only” 10-years, apparently, like Michelle Taylor; or 20-years with no chance for parole, like Brittany Zamora, and who knows how many other women, teachers and non-teachers, who received similar prison sentences. In pre-feminist America, was there even one woman who received such a draconian sentence for having a love affair or mere tryst with a biological man under age 18?

And even if incarcerated, none of them, upon their release, were subjected to years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet,” and registration for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, their mug-shots, names, and addresses on the internet for all to see and all that that entails in regard to danger and mortification.

None of these laws and policies, these draconian/Orwellian punishments, inflicted on Abigail and myriads of other women for no exigent and practical reasons, would exist if not for feminism. Beginning in the early 1970s, in deference to feminism and the anti-rape movement which began, publicly and officially, in 1971 with the New York radical feminist rape conference, sex crime laws were revamped. State legislators, overwhelmingly male, enacted and imposed laws written by feminist lawyers.

De facto consensual sex between adults and young men and women under age 16 or 18, depending on the age of consent in each jurisdiction, was now a “gender-neutral” crime that applied equally to women and was equated or conflated under the law with violent-forcible rape and the rape and/or molestation of prepubescent children. And women were now defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships

Most infamously, Mary Letourneau was convicted of “child rape” under Washington law, and sentenced to almost a decade in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration, albeit she didn’t rape her “victim,” obviously, nor did she use violence/force or threats of same to compel his submission, nor was she guilty of molesting a prepubescent child. Her victim” was the aggressor and initiator who forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse. (Read my articles and blog-posts on her case for more details and analysis.)

Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall was convicted of “sexual assault of a child,” which implies that she was guilty of violence/force or threats of same in sexually abusing and violating a helpless and innocent  prepubescent boy, and sentenced to 4-years in prison and a lifetime of sex-offender registration -when, in fact, she was the victim of abuse and her “victim” was the abuser and victimizer. He was not a child, biologically, but a man in size and sexuality, a delinquent and criminal of 15 who, as her student, constantly harassed and implored her for sex at school and in her classroom, molested and kissed her against her will, and finally raped her when she visited him at home on school business, apparently when no one else was present. She didn’t report the rape lest he “go to prison and become more of a delinquent.” Exploiting her altruism and compassion, not only misguided and foolish but ill-deserved and self-destructive, he manipulated and bullied her into having sex with him in an intrigue she didn’t know how to “end without hurting him,” resulting to her arrest and all that followed,

The real criminal, sexually and otherwise, was not punished, and who knows how many crimes he committed before he raped and molested Cassandra, and who knows how manyy crimes he’s committed thereafter. Did he rape any more women or adolescent girls, or even murder someone, like the “victim” of Melissa Bittner, who was convicted of
“sexual assault” and sentenced to prison and much else because she was sexually assaulted by a 16-year-old delinquent. (See the posts on her case for more details.)

Ironically and paradoxically, such iniquities and outrages and travesties, inflicted even on women who were raped and molested by their de jure “victims” but still charged with and convicted of felony sex offenses, and the draconian-Orwellian sentences, are inconceivable apart from feminism and the anti-rape movement and CSA victimology.

CSA victimology and it’s tenets and dogmas and the resultant mass-hysteria, psychosis, moral panics, witch-hunts, and imprisonment and persecution of myriads of men and women who were/are either innocent or guilty of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita felonies, overwhelmingly first-offenders who, even if not innocent, were/are not violent and dangerous, people who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in their lives and almost surely never will and are not a “threat to society or to anyone nor even a “danger to reoffend” by having sex with another biological man or woman under statutory age – this madness and reign of terror is inconceivable apart from feminist ideology and it’s decades-long jihad against sexual victimization, real and imagined.

Nor would adult women who have sex with young men under statutory age be absurdly defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” if not for feminism and the myth and premise that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and the conflation of prepubescent boys and girls with pubescent male and female adolescents. And even the inescapable differences in anatomy and their relevance to and importance in sexual postures and possibilities are denied and trivialized as irrelevant and insignificant by feminists and other leftists and egalitarians (most fanatically, obsessively, and viciously by MRA, the misogynist crazies and liars of the soi-disant “men’s movement”) who define and vilify adult women 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, and the only crime in which the “victim” enjoys the actus reus (i.e. the sex) more than the woman who “rapes” and/or “molests” and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.” Nor would young men under age 16 or even 18 who consent to or initiate sex with adult women be defined as “victims” of “rape” and CSA who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life.”

Abigail was convicted of “criminal sexual misdonduct,” a vague term, legally and empircally, under which all sorts of sex-acts that are now crimes, nearly always felonies, are subsumed: everything from violent-forcible rape, iinclding the most sadistic, brutal, vicious rapes and gang-rapes, truly “heinous” crimes that often also involve aggravated assault, kidnapping, “false imprisonment,” home invasions, torture, mutilation, and murder; to the molestation of prepubescent children; to factually consensual sex between adults and young men and women under statutory age, including women who are convicted of felonies for having sex with biological men under age 16 or 18 (or even 18-year-olds if the women is a teacher or tutor like Abigail and the “victim” is a student under her authority.

In contrast, legally and empirically, “statutory rape” is not a vaguely defined criminal offense. It defines, clearly and accurately, a specific and objective act. The modifying “statutory” denotes an absence of violent/force or threats of same to compel the submission of the “victim” -i.e., it reveals that the sex was consensual, factually as opposed to legally- while “rape” signifies the reality of penile-vaginal penetration, an act which only males can perpetrate. Thus even to define the women above as “statutory rapists” and their “crimes” as “statutory rape” is objectively and empirically false and thus absurd.

To repeat: Does Abigail know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life, culpable for her sentence of 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove and public sex-offender registration. And so, too, now and in the past and future, he women above and far too many others whose lives have been and will be blighted or destroyed by modern feminism and CSA victimology.

 

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

10 Sunday Jan 2021

Posted by in age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness, Mary Letourneau, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

What happens to a woman when she finds the man of her dreams, only he is a child? And if the woman is his teacher? American parents cringed at the story of Mary Kay Letourneau, who first met Vili Fualaau when she was his teacher in second grade. He did not start flirting with her until he was in sixth. She started to have sex with him the next year, when he was 13. Already the mother of four from a marriage that was disintegrating, she would bear the teenager’s daughter, but not before she ended up in prison on rape and molestation charges. She would then violate the rules for the suspension of her sentence by seeing him again -and becoming pregnant again. Letourneau’s beauty and struggles with manic depression made her illicit affair the fodder of tabloids and women’s magazine around the world. But there was something touching, if maddening, abut her refusal to renounce her love for the boy at the cost of her freedom. In 1998, after giving birth to her second child, she began serving a seven-year prison sentence. Released on parole in August 2004, she quickly married her young lover, who by then had turned 21. (Howard Chua-Eoan, “Mary Kay Letourneau’s Forbidden Love, 1978,” Time.com, 2007.)

Surprisingly, this account of her story is honest and accurate, neutral and objective, comparatively, in contrast to most of the media coverage, characterized and vitiated by falsehoods, intentional and unintentional, lies and canards, distortions and misinformation, rampant hysteria and tabloid sensationalism: the demonization of Mary as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester,” a description that was/is false, objectively and scientifically, and malicious and slanderous. And the depiction, equally false, of Vili as a “victim” of “rape” and “child molestation,” tantamount or comparable to a prepubertal girl of 11 or 12 who is too young and immature to consent to or initiate sex and who is a true victim of a perverse and predatory male, an adult or underage adolescent, who rapes and molests her. The MSM as a whole was less a source of factual and objective news than an agent and myrmidon of CSA victimology propaganda and inculcation.

This journalist doesn’t refer to Mary as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester.” Or Vili as a “victim.” He notes that he was 13, not 12, when they first had sex and that he started to flirt with her in sixth grade, conceding that he was the initiator of their sexual union but not exposing the nature and degree of his aggressions. It notes that her marriage was “disintegrating,” which implies that she didn’t destroy her marriage and betray her husband and desert her children by falling in love and having sex with Vili and twice becoming pregnant, but doesn’t mention that her marriage was “disintegrating,” primarily, because of her husband’s serial adulteries and philandering. She was finally going to divorce him after years of betrayal and infidelity, apparently, and perhaps he wanted to divorce her because he fell in love with and wanted to marry or live with another woman? And in describing her love for Vili as “touching” and her “struggles with manic depression,” he’s commiserative, mildly, rather than censorious.

It’s true that he was “only” 13, not 12, when they first had sex. But it’s also true that he was pubescent at age 10, “sexually-active” at age 12, for sure, and possibly even 11, and probably had more sexual partners, perhaps far more, at age 13 than did Mary at age 33. Raised as a Catholic, strictly and devoutly, it’s possible that the only man Mary had sex with before Vili was her husband. And Vili was the aggressor in their sexual union, forcing himself on her the first time they had intercourse. In response to my comments, she confirmed in one of the many letters we exchanged that the first time they had intercourse was “against my will.”

So, given such facts, his level of maturity was closer to that of a typical 16- or 17-old as opposed to a typical 13-year-old. In regard to maturity, the age of puberty, intelligence, sexual experience, etc, the nature of 13-year-old varies significantly. Millions of 13- and 14-year-olds, especially if pubescent at age 10 or 11 or 12, are more or far more intelligent, mature, “sexually-active,” sexually-experienced, etc., than millions of 16- and17-year-olds.

(For the record, which is pertinent, I was an atheist at age 10, when I was still a child, biologically, agnostic at 8 and 9 as I vaguely remember, and pubescent at age 11, which reveals a level of maturity far beyond my numerical age. And Vili was pubescent at age 10.)

The obligatory lie or canard that began in 1997 and continues to this day, over 20-years later, is that Mary “seduced” and “raped” the “child” and “little boy” when he was only 12-years-old. The commenters and reporters who say and write this are either lying or misinformed. Are they ignorant of the facts or are they lying to make her “crimes” appear more “heinous” and “shocking” and to give the absurd depiction and vilification of Mary as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester” a spurious credibility and gravitas. Unlike Vili and many others, most 12-year-olds are prepubescent. Prepubertal 12-year-olds are children, biologically, whereas most 13-year-olds are pubescent, and also teenagers.

Does Abigail Know that Feminism is Culpable, Seminally and Predominantly, for Destroying her Life?

03 Tuesday Mar 2020

Posted by in "sex-offender treatment", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, feminism, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

As noted previously, in a few posts, Abigail was prohibited from receiving and reading a letter and articles I sent to the Huron Valley Correctional Facility. To the authorities, my words were a “threat to security, good order, or discipline.”

Did the left-feminist ideologues and totalitarians who rule the prison and the lives of inmates believe that Abigail would have gone berserk and attacked the guards and/or other inmates, perhaps inciting a riot or mass revolt, had she been allowed to read my heterodox and “politically-incorrect” arguments and contentions? Or simply that they would have vitiated the efficacy of her “sex-offender treatment”?

So, in effect, I’m a victim of censorship, denied the right to correspond with Abigail and ask her many questions about her intrigue with a 15-year-old student and biological man, her phantasmal and theoretical “victim” whom she claims forced himself on her three times and “controlled her life” by threats and manipulation; her arrest, prosecution, trial, why she rejected the plea-bargains, her life in jail and prison; her life, especially as an adult, before it was shattered, forever and needlessly, by the criminal injustice system; her ideals, values, and opinions on various issues and subjects: e.g., what did she think of Mary Letourneau and her affair with a student and her sentence of 8-years in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration. What did she think of such laws and penalties, to the extent that she was aware of them, before they ruined her life?

Like most educated women, the overwhelming majority, alas,, I presume that Abigail is a left-liberal, probably more liberal than extreme/radical left, though I could be wrong. And, moreover, that she defines and thinks of herself as a feminist, however defined, broadly or narrowly, vaguely or precisely, accurately or inaccurately. If so, does she know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life.

In pre-feminist America, including the 1960s, the decade of  the “sexual revolution,” “statutory rape” laws didn’t even apply to women in most jurisdictions. And if they did so apply to women in some states or if women who had sex with young men under age 16 or 18 were guilty of a “moral’s offense,” however defined, how many women were arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail or prison for such offenses? (Read my blog-post on Kirk Douglas) And how many were sentenced to 8-25 years in prison, like Abigail, or 6-15 years, like Kathryn Ronk, or enslaved for 8-years, like Mary Letourneau; or 40-years, like Shannon Schmeider, with a chance for parole after “only” 20 years; or life with a chance for parole after “only” 10-years, apparently, like Michelle Taylor; or 20-years with no chance for parole, like Brittany Zamora, and who knows how many other women, teachers and non-teachers, who received similar prison sentences. In pre-feminist America, was there even one woman who received such a draconian sentence for having a love affair or mere tryst with a biological man under age 18?

And even if incarcerated, none of them, upon their release, were subjected to years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet,” and registration for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, their mug-shots, names, and addresses on the internet for all to see and all that that entails in regard to danger and mortification.

None of these laws and policies, these draconian/Orwellian punishments, inflicted on Abigail and myriads of other women for no exigent and practical reasons, would exist if not for feminism. Beginning in the early 1970s, in deference to feminism and the anti-rape movement which began, publicly and officially, in 1971 with the New York radical feminist rape conference, sex crime laws were revamped. State legislators, overwhelmingly male, enacted and imposed laws written by feminist lawyers.

De facto consensual sex between adults and young men and women under age 16 or 18, depending on the age of consent in each jurisdiction, was now a “gender-neutral” crime that applied equally to women and was equated or conflated under the law with violent-forcible rape and the rape and/or molestation of prepubescent children. And women were now defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships

Most infamously, Mary Letourneau was convicted of “child rape” under Washington law, and sentenced to almost a decade in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration, albeit she didn’t rape her “victim,” obviously, nor did she use violence/force or threats of same to compel his submission, nor was she guilty of molesting a prepubescent child. Her victim” was the aggressor and initiator who forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse. (Read my articles and blog-posts on her case for more details and analysis.)

Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall was convicted of “sexual assault of a child,” which implies that she was guilty of violence/force or threats of same in sexually abusing and violating a helpless and innocent  prepubescent boy, and sentenced to 4-years in prison and a lifetime of sex-offender registration -when, in fact, she was the victim of abuse and her “victim” was the abuser and victimizer. He was not a child, biologically, but a man in size and sexuality, a delinquent and criminal of 15 who, as her student, constantly harassed and implored her for sex at school and in her classroom, molested and kissed her against her will, and finally raped her when she visited him at home on school business, apparently when no one else was present. She didn’t report the rape lest he “go to prison and become more of a delinquent.” Exploiting her altruism and compassion, not only misguided and foolish but ill-deserved and self-destructive, he manipulated and bullied her into having sex with him in an intrigue she didn’t know how to “end without hurting him,” resulting to her arrest and all that followed,

The real criminal, sexually and otherwise, was not punished, and who knows how many crimes he committed before he raped and molested Cassandra, and who knows how manyy crimes he’s committed thereafter. Did he rape any more women or adolescent girls, or even murder someone, like the “victim” of Melissa Bittner, who was convicted of
“sexual assault” and sentenced to prison and much else because she was sexually assaulted by a 16-year-old delinquent. (See the posts on her case for more details.)

Ironically and paradoxically, such iniquities and outrages and travesties, inflicted even on women who were raped and molested by their de jure “victims” but still charged with and convicted of felony sex offenses, and the draconian-Orwellian sentences, are inconceivable apart from feminism and the anti-rape movement and CSA victimology.

CSA victimology and it’s tenets and dogmas and the resultant mass-hysteria, psychosis, moral panics, witch-hunts, and imprisonment and persecution of myriads of men and women who were/are either innocent or guilty of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita felonies, overwhelmingly first-offenders who, even if not innocent, were/are not violent and dangerous, people who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in their lives and almost surely never will and are not a “threat to society or to anyone nor even a “danger to reoffend” by having sex with another biological man or woman under statutory age – this madness and reign of terror is inconceivable apart from feminist ideology and it’s decades-long jihad against sexual victimization, real and imagined.

Nor would adult women who have sex with young men under statutory age be absurdly defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” if not for feminism and the myth and premise that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and the conflation of prepubescent boys and girls with pubescent male and female adolescents. And even the inescapable differences in anatomy and their relevance to and importance in sexual postures and possibilities are denied and trivialized as irrelevant and insignificant by feminists and other leftists and egalitarians (most fanatically, obsessively, and viciously by MRA, the misogynist crazies and liars of the soi-disant “men’s movement”) who define and vilify adult women 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, and the only crime in which the “victim” enjoys the actus reus (i.e. the sex) more than the woman who “rapes” and/or “molests” and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.” Nor would young men under age 16 or even 18 who consent to or initiate sex with adult women be defined as “victims” of “rape” and CSA who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life.”

Abigail was convicted of “criminal sexual misdonduct,” a vague term, legally and empircally, under which all sorts of sex-acts that are now crimes, nearly always felonies, are subsumed: everything from violent-forcible rape, iinclding the most sadistic, brutal, vicious rapes and gang-rapes, truly “heinous” crimes that often also involve aggravated assault, kidnapping, “false imprisonment,” home invasions, torture, mutilation, and murder; to the molestation of prepubescent children; to factually consensual sex between adults and young men and women under statutory age, including women who are convicted of felonies for having sex with biological men under age 16 or 18 (or even 18-year-olds if the women is a teacher or tutor like Abigail and the “victim” is a student under her authority.

In contrast, legally and empirically, “statutory rape” is not a vaguely defined criminal offense. It defines, clearly and accurately, a specific and objective act. The modifying “statutory” denotes an absence of violent/force or threats of same to compel the submission of the “victim” -i.e., it reveals that the sex was consensual, factually as opposed to legally- while “rape” signifies the reality of penile-vaginal penetration, an act which only males can perpetrate. Thus even to define the women above as “statutory rapists” and their “crimes” as “statutory rape” is objectively and empirically false and thus absurd.

To repeat: Does Abigail know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life, culpable for her sentence of 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove and public sex-offender registration. And so, too, now and in the past and future, he women above and far too many others whose lives have been and will be blighted or destroyed by modern feminism and CSA victimology.

 

Reality vs. Fantasy

03 Monday Sep 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Joseph Epstein on the generic nature of teenage males:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Abigail Know that Feminism is Culpable, Seminally and Predominantly, for Destroying her Life?

28 Saturday Jul 2018

Posted by in "sex-offender treatment", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, feminism, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

As noted previously, in a few posts, Abigail was prohibited from receiving and reading a letter and articles I sent to the Huron Valley Correctional Facility. To the authorities, my words were a “threat to security, good order, or discipline.”

Did the left-feminist ideologues and totalitarians who rule the prison and the lives of inmates believe that Abigail would have gone berserk and attacked the guards and/or other inmates, perhaps inciting a riot or mass revolt, had she been allowed to read my heterodox and “politically-incorrect” arguments and contentions. Or simply that they would have vitiated the efficacy of her “sex-offender treatment.”

So, in effect, I’m a victim of censorship, denied the right to correspond with Abigail and ask her many questions about her intrigue with a 15-year-old student and biological man, her phantasmal and theoretical “victim” whom she claims forced himself on her three times and “controlled her life” by threats and manipulation; her arrest, prosecution, trial, why she rejected the plea-bargains, her life in jail and prison; her life, especially as an adult, before it was shattered, forever and needlessly, by the criminal justice system; her ideals, values, and opinions on various issues and subjects: e.g., what did she think of Mary Letourneau and her affair with a student and her sentence of 8-years in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration. What did she think of such laws and penalties, to the extent that she was aware of them, before they ruined her life?

Like most educated women, the overwhelming majority, alas,, I presume that Abigail is a left-liberal, probably more liberal than extreme/radical left, though I could be wrong. And, moreover, that she defines and thinks of herself as a feminist, however defined, broadly or narrowly, vaguely or precisely, accurately or inaccurately. If so, does she know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life.

In pre-feminist America, including the 1960s, the decade of  the “sexual revolution,” “statutory rape” laws didn’t even apply to women in most jurisdictions. And if they did so apply to women in some states or if women who had sex with young men under age 16 or 18 were guilty of a “moral’s offense,” however defined, how many women were arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail or prison for such offenses? (Read my blog-post on Kirk Douglas) And how many were sentenced to 8-25 years in prison, like Abigail, or 6-15 years, like Kathryn Ronk, or enslaved for 8-years, like Mary Letourneau; or 40-years, like Shannon Schmeider, with a chance for parole after “only” 20 years; or life with a chance for parole after “only” 10-years, apparently, like Michelle Taylor; or 20-years with no chance for parole, like Brittany Zamora, and who knows how many other women, teachers and non-teachers, who received similar prison sentences. In pre-feminist America, was there even one woman who received such a draconian sentence for having a love affair or mere tryst with a biological man under age 18?

And even if incarcerated, none of them, upon their release, were subjected to years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet,” and registration for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, their mug-shots, names, and addresses on the internet for all to see and all that that entails in regard to danger and mortification.

None of these laws and policies, these draconian/Orwellian punishments, inflicted on Abigail and myriads of other women for no exigent and practical reasons, would exist if not for feminism. Beginning in the early 1970s, in deference to feminism and the anti-rape movement which began, publicly and officially, in 1971 with the New York radical feminist rape conference, sex crime laws were revamped. State legislators, overwhelmingly male, enacted and imposed laws written by feminist lawyers.

De facto consensual sex between adults and young men and women under age 16 or 18, depending on the age of consent in each jurisdiction, was now a “gender-neutral” crime that applied equally to women and was equated or conflated under the law with violent-forcible rape and the rape and/or molestation of prepubescent children. And women were now defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships

Most infamously, Mary Letourneau was convicted of “child rape” under Washington law, and sentenced to almost a decade in prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration, albeit she didn’t rape her “victim,” obviously, nor did she use violence/force or threats of same to compel his submission, nor was she guilty of molesting a prepubescent child. Her victim” was the aggressor and initiator who forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse. (Read my articles and blog-posts on her case for more details and analysis.)

Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall was convicted of “sexual assault of a child,” which implies that she was guilty of violence/force or threats of same in sexually abusing and violating a helpless and innocent  prepubescent boy, and sentenced to 4-years in prison and a lifetime of sex-offender registration -when, in fact, she was the victim of abuse and her “victim” was the abuser and victimizer. He was not a child, biologically, but a man in size and sexuality, a delinquent and criminal of 15 who, as her student, constantly harassed and implored her for sex at school and in her classroom, molested and kissed her against her will, and finally raped her when she visited him at home on school business, apparently when no one else was present. She didn’t report the rape lest he “go to prison and become more of a delinquent.” Exploiting her altruism and compassion, not only misguided and foolish but ill-deserved and self-destructive, he manipulated and bullied her into having sex with him in an intrigue she didn’t know how to “end without hurting him,” resulting to her arrest and all that followed,

The real criminal, sexually and otherwise, was not punished, and who knows how many crimes he committed before he raped and molested Cassandra, and who knows how manyy crimes he’s committed thereafter. Did he rape any more women or adolescent girls, or even murder someone, like the “victim” of Melissa Bittner, who was convicted of
“sexual assault” and sentenced to prison and much else because she was sexually assaulted by a 16-year-old delinquent. (See the posts on her case for more details.)

Ironically and paradoxically, such iniquities and outrages and travesties, inflicted even on women who were raped and molested by their de jure “victims” but still charged with and convicted of felony sex offenses, and the draconian-Orwellian sentences, are inconceivable apart from feminism and the anti-rape movement and CSA victimology.

CSA victimology and it’s tenets and dogmas and the resultant mass-hysteria, psychosis, moral panics, witch-hunts, and imprisonment and persecution of myriads of men and women who were/are either innocent or guilty of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita felonies, overwhelmingly first-offenders who, even if not innocent, were/are not violent and dangerous, people who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in their lives and almost surely never will and are not a “threat to society or to anyone nor even a “danger to reoffend” by having sex with another biological man or woman under statutory age – this madness and reign of terror is inconceivable apart from feminist ideology and it’s decades-long jihad against sexual victimization, real and imagined.

Nor would adult women who have sex with young men under statutory age be absurdly defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” if not for feminism and the myth and premise that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and the conflation of prepubescent boys and girls with pubescent male and female adolescents. And even the inescapable differences in anatomy and their relevance to and importance in sexual postures and possibilities are denied and trivialized as irrelevant and insignificant by feminists and others (most fanatically, obsessively, and viciously by MRA, the misogynist crazies and liars of the soi-disant “men’s movement”) who define and vilify adult women 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, and the only crime in which the “victim” enjoys the actus reus (i.e. the sex) more than the woman who “rapes” and/or “molests” and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.” Nor would young men under age 16 or even 18 who consent to or initiate sex with adult women be defined as “victims” of “rape” and CSA who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life.”

Abigail was convicted of “criminal sexual misdonduct,” a vague term, legally and empircally, under which all sorts of sex-acts that are now crimes, nearly always felonies, are subsumed: everything from violent-forcible rape, iinclding the most sadistic, brutal, vicious rapes and gang-rapes, truly “heinous” crimes that often also involve aggravated assault, kidnapping, “false imprisonment,” home invasions, torture, mutilation, and murder; to the molestation of prepubescent children; to factually consensual sex between adults and young men and women under statutory age, including women who are convicted of felonies for having sex with biological men under age 16 or 18 (or even 18-year-olds if the women is a teacher or tutor like Abigail and the “victim” is a student under her authority.

In contrast, legally and empirically, “statutory rape” is not a vaguely defined criminal offense. It defines, clearly and accurately, a specific and objective act. The modifying “statutory” denotes an absence of violent/force or threats of same to compel the submission of the “victim” -i.e., it reveals that the sex was consensual, factually as opposed to legally- while “rape” signifies the reality of penile-vaginal penetration, an act which only males can perpetrate. Thus even to define the women above as “statutory rapists” and their “crimes” as “statutory rape” is objectively and empirically false and thus absurd.

To repeat: Does Abigail know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life, culpable for her sentence of 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove and public sex-offender registration. And so, too, now and in the past and future, he women above and far too many others whose lives have been and will be blighted or destroyed by modern feminism and CSA victimology.

 

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

05 Thursday Apr 2018

Posted by in age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness, Mary Letourneau, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

What happens to a woman when she finds the man of her dreams, only he is a child? And if the woman is his teacher? American parents cringed at the story of Mary Kay Letourneau, who first met Vili Fualaau when she was his teacher in second grade. He did not start flirting with her until he was in sixth. She started to have sex with him the next year, when he was 13. Already the mother of four from a marriage that was disintegrating, she would bear the teenager’s daughter, but not before she ended up in prison on rape and molestation charges. She would then violate the rules for the suspension of her sentence by seeing him again -and becoming pregnant again. Letourneau’s beauty and struggles with manic depression made her illicit affair the fodder of tabloids and women’s magazine around the world. But there was something touching, if maddening, abut her refusal to renounce her love for the boy at the cost of her freedom. In 1998, after giving birth to her second child, she began serving a seven-year prison sentence. Released on parole in August 2004, she quickly married her young lover, who by then had turned 21. (Howard Chua-Eoan, “Mary Kay Letourneau’s Forbidden Love, 1978,” Time.com, 2007.)

Surprisingly, this account of her story is honest and accurate, neutral and objective, comparatively, in contrast to most of the media coverage, characterized and vitiated by falsehoods, intentional and unintentional, lies and canards, distortions and misinformation, rampant hysteria and tabloid sensationalism: the demonization of Mary as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester,” a description that was/is false, objectively and scientifically, and malicious and slanderous. And the depiction, equally false, of Vili as a “victim” of “rape” and “child molestation,” tantamount or comparable to a prepubertal girl of 11 or 12 who is too young and immature to consent to or initiate sex and who is a true victim of a perverse and predatory male, an adult or underage adolescent, who rapes and molests her. The MSM as a whole was less a source of factual and objective news than an agent and myrmidon of CSA victimology propaganda and inculcation.

This journalist doesn’t refer to Mary as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester.” Or Vili as a “victim.” He notes that he was 13, not 12, when they first had sex and that he started to flirt with her in sixth grade, conceding that he was the initiator of their sexual union but not exposing the nature and degree of his aggressions. It notes that her marriage was “disintegrating,” which implies that she didn’t destroy her marriage and betray her husband and desert her children by falling in love and having sex with Vili and twice becoming pregnant, but doesn’t mention that her marriage was “disintegrating,” primarily, because of her husband’s serial adulteries and philandering. She was finally going to divorce him after years of betrayal and infidelity, apparently, and perhaps he wanted to divorce her because he fell in love with and wanted to marry or live with another woman? And in describing her love for Vili as “touching” and her “struggles with manic depression,” he’s commiserative, mildly, rather than censorious.

It’s true that he was “only” 13, not 12, when they first had sex. But it’s also true that he was pubescent at age 10, “sexually-active” at age 12, for sure, and possibly even 11, and probably had more sexual partners, perhaps far more, at age 13 than did Mary at age 33. Raised as a Catholic, strictly and devoutly, it’s possible that the only man Mary had sex with before Vili was her husband. And Vili was the aggressor in their sexual union, forcing himself on her the first time they had intercourse. In response to my comments, she confirmed in one of the many letters we exchanged that the first time they had intercourse was “against my will.”

So, given such facts, his level of maturity was closer to that of a typical 16- or 17-old as opposed to a typical 13-year-old. In regard to maturity, the age of puberty, intelligence, sexual experience, etc, the nature of 13-year-old varies significantly. Millions of 13- and 14-year-olds, especially if pubescent at age 10 or 11 or 12, are more or far more intelligent, mature, “sexually-active,” sexually-experienced, etc., than millions of 16- and17-year-olds.

(For the record, which is pertinent, I was an atheist at age 10, when I was still a child, biologically, agnostic at 8 and 9 as I vaguely remember, and pubescent at age 11, which reveals a level of maturity far beyond my numerical age. And Vili was pubescent at age 10.)

The obligatory lie or canard that began in 1997 and continues to this day, over 20-years later, is that Mary “seduced” and “raped” the “child” and “little boy” when he was only 12-years-old. The commenters and reporters who say and write this are either lying or misinformed. Are they ignorant of the facts or are they lying to make her “crimes” appear more “heinous” and “shocking” and to give the absurd depiction and vilification of Mary as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester” a spurious credibility and gravitas. Unlike Vili and many others, most 12-year-olds are prepubescent. Prepubertal 12-year-olds are children, biologically, whereas most 13-year-olds are pubescent, and also teenagers.

Recidivism Rates of Sex Offenders: Violent Rapists and Pedophiles vs. Women who have Sex with Biological Men under Statutory Age

01 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by in "anarcho-tyranny", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, innate sex differences, embodiment, maleness and femaleness, MRAs, "men's movement, sex offender registry, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

CSA victimologists argue that sex-offenders, all  sex-offenders, not only violent rapists and pedophiles but also adults who engage in consensual sex-acts with pubescent teenagers under statutory age, have greater rates of recidivism than other categories of convicted felons and, consequently, must be forced to register as uniquely deviant and dangerous criminals.

NARSOL (formerly RSOL) has many articles confuting, persuasively, the contention that sex-offenders are more likely to re-offend than other classes of offenders, even recidivist criminals who’ve committed dozens of violent and other mala in se crimes but have never been convicted of a sexual offense.

Moreover, the recidivism rates of sex-offenders in general are profoundly misleading in that the overwhelming majority of males who commit violent/forcible rapes and gang-rapes, and virtually all of those who commit street/stranger rapes (e.g., who rape and gang-rape women in parks or break into homes and rape and gang-rape women, crimes which often involve murder and/or aggravated assault), are low IQ recidivist criminals who also commit other violent and mala in se crimes. This reality induces all kinds of confusion and can be easily manipulated, statistically, to foster the myth that sex-offenders in general are more likely to re-offend than other categories of offenders.

But even if one assumes, purely for the sake of argument, that NARSOL and other critics are wrong and that sex-offenders as a group do have higher rates of recidivism than other categories of felons, what’s true of sex offenders as a group does not apply to adults, first-offenders with no prior criminal records, who have consensual sex with pubescent teenagers under age 16 or 17 or 18, depending on the age of consent in each state, and especially to women who have sex with young men under statutory age.

It’s likely that not one woman teacher who had sex with a male student age 13-17 (and its now a felony in most states for teachers to have consensual sex with 18-year-old students) has ‘re-offended” by having sex with another young man under statutory age. If so, their recidivism rate is ZERO. And even if one or two of them have “re-offended,” i.e.,transporting another biological man under under statutory age to carnal elysium, which I doubt, their recidivism rate is far less than one percent or almost ZERO.

Males who commit violent/forcible rapes, overwhelmingly low-IQ stereotypical criminals (including biological men under age 18 who are absurdly defined as “children”), are driven by a propensity for violence and predation that is insoluble and difficult to control. This explains why they are likely to re-offend by committing not only rapes and gang-rapes but also aggravated assaults, muggings, armed robberies, burglaries, gang-shootings, murders, attempted murders, home invasions, etc.

True pedophiles convicted of raping and/or molesting prepubescent children, i.e., biological men (including those under age 18 who are defined as “children”) with a sexual fixation on and obsession with prepubescent children, are driven by a fetish and “paraphilia” that is incurable and often difficult to control, Ergo, they’re a risk to re-offend.

Adult females who have sex with young men under the age of 16 or 17 or 18 are not driven by a propensity for violence or a fetish or “paraphilia” that is insoluble and difficult to control. And that explains why it’s likely that not a single woman teacher who had sex with a male student has “re-offended” by having sex with another biological man under statutory age. That explains why their recidivism rate is likely ZERO and surely far less than ONE PERCENT. The reason for this is that they were attracted to and had sex with young men under age 18 for the same reason they’re attracted to and have had sex with adult men in their 20s and 30s and 40s and beyond.

But to CSA victimologists, virtually all of whom are feminists and left-liberals, and to MRAs, the misogynist crazies and vermin of the soi-disant “men’s movement,” and the millions and millions of men and women they’re browbeat and brainwashed, adult females who have consensual sex with young men under statutory age are tantamount or comparable to men (including underage adolescents) who commit violent/forcible rapes and to pedophiles who rape and molest prepubescent boys and girls, and thus are defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” and “child molesters” who must register for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely deviant and dangerous criminals who are more likely to re-offend than criminals who are actually violent and seriously dangerous, including stereotypical and recidivist males who’ve committed dozens of violent and other mala in se crimes but who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense albeit most of them have raped and/or gang-raped men in jails and prisons and/or women and adolescent girls.

Thus Abigail Simon must not only register for life as a uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminal, her name, mug-shot, and address on the internet for all to see along with myriads of other men and women who are not violent and dangerous, unlike legions of true criminals, nor even a “danger to re-offend” by having sex with another teenager under statutory age. She must also wear an electronic ankle-tether/”bracelet” she can never remove until she dies at age 77 or 84 or 96 or whenever -albeit she has never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in her life and never will and is not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor even a “danger” to “re-offend” by having sex with another biological man under statutory age.

To repeat: decrying this as “insane” is an understatement. It’s beyond insanity.

 

Age and Male Behavior

04 Sunday Mar 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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