Tag Archives: “traumatization”

CSA Victimology: Delusional, Ludicrous, Malignant

19 Wednesday Apr 2023

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.

Grotesque, Howling, Psychotic Nonsense

19 Wednesday Apr 2023

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.

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.

Why do I Bother?

19 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, Cassandra, CSA victimology, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

The primary reason I started this blog was to send Abigail letters and articles and posts on her case and those of other women, teachers and non-teachers, infamous and obscure, whose lives have been ruined, to varying degrees, by these insane and execrable and grotesque laws, asking her many question, questions about her liaison with the football star, her arrest, jailing, prosecution, rejection of plea-bargains, pretrial hearings, trial, conviction, sentencing, her life in jail and prison, and hoping she’d respond, as did Mary Letourneau, in many long letters, and Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall in two short letters in which she answered a few questions, giving me some useful information, before saying she didn’t want to further discuss the matter. I was hoping she’d respond at length and also tell her family and friends, giving me their addresses, preferably their email addresses, so I could write them and ask many questions about the travail and nightmare, both of Abigail and themselves, from her arrest to her imprisonment, and their opinions, emotions, thoughts, etc.

A few weeks after sending her a letter and a few articles and blog-posts, I received a letter from the prison mail-room, a Michigan Department of Corrections’ “Notice of Package/Mail Rejection” with “threat to security, good order or discipline” highlighted in yellow as the reason for rejection.

So to the prison authorities, opposition to and criticism of  CSA victimology, the absurd premises and dogmas and the laws and policies they’ve engendered -e.g., ludicrously defining women as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for allowing  biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships, and the young men who consent to or initiate sex with them as “victims” of rape and CSA who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” and, consequently, the draconian/Orwellian punishments: sentences of months in jail or years in prison (in some cases even decades), mandatory “sex–offender treatment,” electronic parole-monitoring, quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, public sex-offender registration- was a “threat to security, good order or discipline.”

How exactly? Did they fear that Abigail would go berserk after reading my letter and articles and blog-posts and assault a few or many guards and inmates. And so, too, with Kathryn Ronk, who was also not allowed to read the letter and articles and blog-post I sent her to maintain “security, good order, and discipline.”

And this message:

NOTE: A copy of this notice is being mailed to sender if rejected pursuant to PD 05.03.118 “Prisoner Mail.” The sender has 10 business days  to send any opposition to this proposed action to the facility head. The sender will be notified of the final decision…

I responded but received no response, I wasn’t “notified of the final decision” for whatever reasons. I was infuriated, dismayed, and also surprised that Abigail, unlike Mary and Cassandra, was prohibited from receiving and reading the letter and articles and blog-posts I sent her in the land of “freedom of speech” and the First Amendment.

So I’m a victim of censorship, not criminally, but in the sense of those with heterodox and “politically-incorrect” views on race and “gender,” academics and students who are censored and punished by universities, e.g., suspended without pay or even fired, expelled and vilified and rebuked and pilloried, compelled to attend “re-education” and “sensitivity training” indoctrination, for the sins of “racism,” “sexism,” nativism, xenophobia, “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” etc.; intellectuals and advocates who are not allowed to speak and express their views on colleges or in the mainstream media, and so forth. To the ruling-elites and governing-classes, not only the left and center but, on some matters, even the right, mainstream and “respectable,” their views are so toxic that the public, whether people watching TV or reading newspapers or students at universities, can’t be allowed to hear them lest they weaken the sacred and regnant myths and orthodoxies, just as Abigail can’t be allowed to read my views on her affair and punishment, arguments and contentions, no matter how logical and realistic and compelling, that are a “threat to security, good order, and discipline.”

Does she even know that I and my blog exist. Do any of her family and friends know that I and my blog exist and, if so, have they read the articles and blog-posts, whether many or just a few. If so, one would think that at least one of them would have sent me an email, however succinct, thanking me for writing on behalf of their daughter, sister, friend, acquaintance.

So why do I bother? And why this subject? I have to do something, something to use my talents and erudition and intelligence, something to pass the time until I depart this madhouse or grow senile and end up in a nursing home. And though I’m essentially an autodidact with no elitist and high-flown “credentials” in the age of ‘credentialism,” I’m the world’s leading critic and expert on this matter from a heterodox and “politically-incorrect” perspective.

 

The Distinctly Odious Barton Deiters

21 Saturday Oct 2017

Posted by in "traumatization", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, appeal, Barton Dieters, CSA victimology, MRAs, "men's movement, Uncategorized, women as rapists

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

As noted in previous articles/blog-posts: when covering the arrest, prosecution, trial, conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and appeals in this case, Barton Dieters has often been less a reporter than a myrmidon of and cheerleader for the prosecution, and later for the judge who twice upheld Abigail’s prison sentence of 8-25 years and life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” she can never remove

For example, a reporter who uses the phrase “ex-tutor guilty of raping her student” is not a true journalist, objective and neutral, but an activist and CSA victimologist, who is using language not to describe but rather to distort and pervert objective reality for ideological and propagandistic easons. Not having penises, women can’t commit rape in the pure and literal sense of the word. And Abigail wasn’t guilty of “rape” even if defined as violent sexual assault. If anyone was a victim of rape in this liaison, it was Abigail if she’s telling the truth about her de jure “victim” forcing himself on her.

And his tendentiousness was blatant in using words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down” in covering the judge’s decisions and arguments at her re-sentencing. “Dispatch” means “to kill with quick efficiency; to dispose of something rapidly or efficiently”; to “defeat.” “Shoot down” means to “kill, defeat, discredit.” And a synonym of “shoot down” is “skewer,” which means to “criticize or ridicule sharply and effectively.” So, according to Dieters, the judge killed Tieber’s arguments, metaphorically, with rapidity and efficiency. He defeated, discredited, and skewered them.

Writing that the judge “rejected” Tieber’s arguments would have been true journalism, neutral and objective, an exemplar of simply reporting the facts rather than siding with the judge, indeed hailing the judge’s decision by using words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down,” and against Tieber.

His use of such words not only implies but asserts that Tieber was wrong in claiming that Abigail was not a threat to “re-offend” and in arguing that a life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with a ankle-tether/”bracelet” was “cruel and unusual punishment,” and that the judge was right in upholding her 8-25 year prison sentence and life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring.

The use of words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down” not only asserts that Tieber’s arguments were wrong and demonstrably false, contrary to facts and logic and reason, but also ridiculous, irrational, delusional.

Imagine the outrage and hysteria if he had sided with Tieber and against the judge by asserting that Tieber was right and the judge was wrong and used words to praise Tieber and belittle and asperse the judge.

As a CSA victimologist, he obviously thinks of her as a “rapist” and “child molester,” perhaps even a “pedophile,” and the biological man who assented to or initiated sex with her as a “child” and “victim” of “rape” and CSA who’ll be “traumatized” and “scarred for life,” whatever the facts and circumstances, even if he raped her, as did the “victim” of Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, and she then assented to sex as did Cassandra.

And he obviously believes she deserves to be enslaved and abused and degraded in prison for at least 8-years if not longer and then subjected to a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution, for a “crime” in which the “victim” enjoys the sex more than the woman who “raped” and “molested” him and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.”

The description of Abigail’s lover and other young men who consent to or initiate sex with adult women as “victims” is not an objective fact but an ideological dogma and legal classification. Journalists and reporters and others who use the term “victim” without quotation marks are legitimizing this dogma and legal classification rather than describing objective reality. They’re reifying a dogma and theory for which there is no objective evidence and empirical substantiation.

To those of us who aren’t MRAs and/or CSA victimologists, or brainwashed and vitiated by same, precisely the opposite is palpably true: the judge was wrong and Tieber was right. The judge’s arguments -what he now believes given his “reeducation” or affects to believe given his fear of  MRAs and CSA victimologists-  were not only false but ridiculous, based on lies and/or delusions.

To those of us who are honest, realistic, objective, and rational on this matter, Tieber was right in arguing that Abigail is not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor even a danger to “re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age, and thus her sentence of 8-25 years in prison was grossly and absurdly excessive and iniquitous, and her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove was “cruel and unusual punishment,” not only in the sense of being cruel, obviously, but also wholly gratuitous, completely unnecessary in that Abigail has never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in her life and never will or is not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor even a “danger to re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age.

But why, seemingly, does he hate her more than most true sex criminals, at least those who are black, Muslim, and “Hispanic”/”Latino”: e.g., males (including biological men under age 18 who are absurdly defined as “children”) who commit violent/forcible rapes and gang-rapes of adult females and underage adolescent girls, most heinously those who use knives and guns and terrorize and brutalize and gravely injure their victims; or men (including underage pubescent teenagers) who rape or prey on and molest prepubertal children.

And does he hate the low IQ brutes and savages who, each year in Detroit alone, commit hundreds of rapes and murders and thousands of other violent and mala in se crimes, and have done so for decades, destroying a city that was once extolled as the “Paris of the West”? Of course not, not as a group or as individuals. Like all leftists, I’m sure he views most of them with empathy and compassion, as “victims” of “racism” and the “legacy of slavery and segregation.” And the hysteria over Abigail’s intrigue with a young man of 15 distracts from the anarchy and mayhem and warfare in Detroit and, to a lesser degree, Flint and Grand Rapids.

One senses that his hatred of Abigail is, in some ways and to some degree, whatever the reasons, deeply personal. One would think he was the “victim’s father,” or a relative. Or that the “victim’s” parents were his friends and/or neighbors, whom he knows intimately.

He appears to revel in her anguish and degradation, pain and suffering. I’m sure he was happy to see her in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons for well over 2-hours at her sentencing, so enervated by fear and angst and despair and lack of sleep that she could barely walk or even stand and almost collapsed twice and often crying. I’m sure he hopes her life in prison is hellish, abusive, degrading, and nightmarish, the more so the better. Thanks to the media, led by him, she’s surely the most infamous, and probably the most hated, of all 2000-plus inmates. He might even be glad to hear that she was assaulted, brutally and viciously, or even murdered.

 

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.

 

 

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.)

 

“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.