Tag Archives: traumatized

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.

Realism and Sanity from “the Derb”: “Sex Equality Dogma taken to Lunatic Extremes”

27 Monday Nov 2017

Posted by in age of consent, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, Debra Lafave, John Derbyshire, Debra Lafave, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Writes John Derbyshire:

O’Reilly implodes; Is Bill O’Reilly finally imploding? I am still a regular viewer of the Factor, but I find that more and more often I turn it off after ten minutes or so to do something more rewarding.

For one thing, there’s his bullying and grandstanding about child molesters. Now, I not a big fan of child molesters, having two kids of my own. The real monsters, though, are a minuscule minority of those who would be swept up by the kinds of laws O’Reilly is arguing for. The majority would be harmless, clueless, sad types who had yielded to, or been led on to, the momentary of some petty fumbling, then been ready to commit suicide when they realized what they had done. People like that need to be chastised and set straight, but they don’t need the magnum sentences they’d get under Sandra’s law, or whatever the hell thing it is O’Reilly is bellowing for.

Even weirder is O’Reilly’s  conviction that the seduction of 14-year-old boys by pretty 25-year-old teachers is just as bad –precisely the same! deserves the identical sentence!- as the contrary thing with a 14-year-old girl and a 25-year-old male teacher. This is sex equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes, as I’ve argued in a previous diary. I’d expect this kind of junk jurisprudence from some glaring feminist, but why am I getting it from O’Reilly? (johnderbyshire.com/opinion/diaries/2006-04)

Actually, the view that the two acts are precisely the same and deserve the identical sentence informs the laws of all 50 states and has done so for decades and has long been espoused by virtually all of our ruling-elites and governing-classes, left and right and center: politicians, the media, SVU detectives, prosecutors, Judges, etc. What JD describes as “weird” is now a sacred and inviolate dogma, and for the elites and a plurality of people they’ve poisoned and propagandized, to confute this absurdity is comparable to denying the holocaust or defending slavery and segregation.

It should also be noted that in most of these intrigues, the woman isn’t even guilty of seduction. Either the “victim” is the aggressor and initiator or their sexual union could be described as a mutual coming together.

And though adult women allowing biological men under statutory age to penetrate them in de facto consensual relationships is not “as bad” or precisely the same as adult men penetrating and often impregnating underage adolescent girls, I also oppose draconian and “magnum” sentences for adult men who have love affairs or mere dalliances with young women under statutory age if they are first-offenders with no history of violent or other mala in se criminality.

More on Traumatization

26 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by in "sex-offender treatment", "traumatization", age of consent, MRAs, "men's movement, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

“Trauma” defined: “a mental condition caused by severe shock, especially when the harmful effects last for a long time.” (Oxford learners dictionaries); “a deeply distressing or disturbing experience.” (Oxford dictionaries); “a very difficult or unpleasant experience that causes someone to have mental or emotional problems usually for a long time”; “a disordered psychic or behavioral state resulting from severe mental or emotional stress….(Merriam-Webster)

The above, according to the “conventional wisdom,” defines the varied experiences, the emotions, the psychic states of and effects on young men under age 16 or even 18 who have sex with adult females who are at least 4-5 years older. Invariably so, according to the dogmas of CSA victimologists, irrespective of the facts and circumstances: whether the women seduced them or they were the aggressors and initiators or their liaisons could be defined as a mutual coming together, or whether they had sex dozens of times over a period of months or engaged in a single act of coitus or fellatio or “sexual contact,” and so forth.

In nearly all instances, in reality and fact as opposed to theory and fantasy, the experiences of young men under age 18 who have sex with adult women are the antithesis of traumatization.

Generally, in reality and fact as opposed to theory and fantasy, if one is traumatized by one or a few or many experience(s), one feels the trauma, immediately and profoundly, viscerally and unequivocally, and knows one is traumatized. One isn’t traumatized if one isn’t aware of being traumatized. If there is any doubt as to whether one was traumatized, then one wasn’t traumatized.

If one is traumatized, deeply and genuinely, by one or a few or many experiences, one doesn’t need to be subjected, willingly or compulsorily, to hours and days and weeks and months and years of psycho-therapy to make one realize that one was traumatized, unconsciously, by an act or acts that one experienced, consciously, as supremely pleasurable, and remembers fondly as gratifying, exciting, fulfilling, empowering.

Unless they’re insane and/or masochistic, people don’t assent to or initiate acts that they know will be traumatizing. And, even more so, they don’t continue to assent to or initiate acts which they experienced as traumatizing.

In regard to instances in which adult women try to seduce or initiate sex with young men under statutory age: If biological men under age 18 don’t want to have sex with adult females for whatever reasons -because they’re in love with girls their own age and don’t want to betray them; because they’re “players” and “super-studs” who’ve had sex many times before and only have sex with females who are at least an “8” and the woman who wants to have sex with them is only a “6′ or at best a “7”; because they were raised to believe that sex outside of marriage is “sinful” and immoral by fundamentalist-evangelical Christian parents; because they’re homosexual, etc.- all they have to do is say “no,” rudely or politely, brusquely or apologetically, to repel their advances and importunities.

Once again, we see how CSA victimologists and those they’ve indoctrinated, most perniciously the ruling-elites and governing-classes,  conflate biological men under age 16 or even 18 with prepubescent girls of 10 and 11. Just as the latter are too young and sexless and innocent to say “no” and resist the sexual aggressions of adult men 18-years of age and older and pubescent teenage males under age 18, so the former are too young and immature to say “no” and repel the advances of women who are nearly always smaller and weaker and usually far smaller and weaker than their putative “victims,” and will not resort to violence/force or overt threats of same (physical assaults and/or weapons) if rebuffed since they’re not violent and deranged and psychopathic -and even if they were violent, they too small and weak to compel the submission of young men under age 16 or 18 who are larger and stronger.

And how many times, in all of history, has a women used a knife or gun to terrorize a young man under statutory age (or of any age from 18 to 80) into submitting to coitus or other sex-acts “against his will”?  At worst, such crimes are so rare as to be negligible, statistically, and virtually nonexistent in contrast to the known and told and unknown and untold millions and millions of rapes and gang-rapes and sexual assaults that adult men and underage teenage males have committed against adult women and underage teenage and prepubescent girls and boys. And also, appallingly, the myriads if not millions of male-on-male rapes and gang-rapes and sexual assaults, predominantly in jails and prisons and detention camps.

Thus, in the minds of CSA victimologists (and also MRAs, for divergent reasons and motives), they have no choice but to engage in sex-acts that will “traumatize,” “devastate,” and “scar” them for life: even if they’ve had sex before, often many times before, with underage adolescent girls, and/or outweigh the women who “rape” them by 50-100 lbs. and are 4-6 times stronger in the upper body. But they’re not too young and immature to be charged with felonies and possibly “waived” into adult court if they rape adult females and underage adolescent girls.

The reason why few biological men under statutory age will reject the advances of adult females is because they want to have sex with them, just as they want to have sex with underage adolescent girls, and know the sex with be pleasurable.

If biological men under age 18 have had sex once or a few or many times with adolescent girls under age 18, then they know that acts of coitus and fellatio with adult women, teachers or whoever, will be just as if not even more exciting and gratifying and empowering, physically and psychologically, depending on the circumstances: e.g., the milieu in which they “make love,” the expertise of the woman in the fine arts of love-making, the attractiveness and desirability of the woman, etc.

If they’re virgins and have never had sex with a female, they’ve surely masturbated, most weekly, many daily, and experienced their orgasms as pleasurable: the tickle, the tingle, the sting, and the spit, and then deep relaxation, the joys of onanism. So even if they’re virgins, they know that that sliding or jamming their penises into the vagina of an adult women and ejaculating inside her will be even more gratifying, physically and psychologically, than self-pleasuring by hand in a bedroom or bathroom or wherever in onanistic solitude,  vitiated by anxiety if their parents are home and nearby or if in a public restroom. Or so, too, with her warm, wet lips and tongue fellating him to orgasmic ecstasy.

Ironically, the hysterical and dogmatic fantasy and insistence of the modern anti-sex feminist left that young men under age 16 or even 18 who eagerly assent to or initiate sex with adult women at least 4-5 years older will be “traumatized” and “scarred for life” is comparable to the hysterical and dogmatic fantasy and insistence of anti-sex Christian puritans that young men who masturbated would “go insane” before they were sentenced to hell for eternity. if they didn’t believe that Jesus was the son of God who was born of a virgin and resurrected the moment he died on the cross. If they did so believe, they would still have “gone insane” from onanism but would have ascended to Heaven after death to enjoy an eternity of bliss as an immortal soul and disembodied mind who can’t have sex with other souls or masturbate.

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.

 

More on the Age of Consent

03 Saturday Sep 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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

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

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

Her “Victim” Should Sue the Media and the State of Michigan.

28 Sunday Aug 2016

Posted by in "traumatization", Abigail Simon, appeal, CSA victimology, lawsuit, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“Battery,” “emotional distress,” “anxiety,” “psychological pain and suffering,” “freight and shock and embarrassment, humiliation, and mortification (talk about redundancy!),” “trauma,” ad nauseam.

If any of this is true rather than contrived and imagined and grossly exaggerated, and probably or clearly a result of this affair as a whole (the intrigue, her arrest, incarceration, prosecution, the pre-trial hearings, trial, conviction, sentencing, her current enslavement, appeal, re-sentencing, his lawsuit, etc.) rather than the stresses of life in general and being a college student and football player, it’s not a result of his liaison with Abigail as a young man of 15 but rather a corollary of the law, the criminal justice system and its gendarmes and functionaries, and the media:

* the arrest and jailing of the woman he loved and who gave him the sex he craved and enjoyed more than her and may have initiated even if she’s lying about his forcing himself on her; the destruction of their love affair and separation from the woman he loved and who loved him, if she’s lying, and whom she transported, willingly, to carnal elysium if the liaison was fully or largely consensual;

* her prosecution, the pre-trial hearings in which he first testified that he forced himself on Abigail and then claimed the sex was factually consensual, apparently threatened with charges of rape if he didn’t change his story so Abigail could be charged with 4-counts of first-degree CSC rather than simply “accosting a minor for immoral purposes;” the trial and hours of testimony under cross-examination; her conviction and incarceration;

* the sentencing in which she was shackled, gratuitously for no exigent and practical reason for over 2-hours, in handcuffs attacked to a waist-chain and leg-irons, so debilitated by fear and despair and anguish and lack of sleep that she could barely walk or even stand and almost collapsed twice; often sobbing, before the judge sentenced her to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution; her enslavement, the appeal (denied by the trial judge and then an appellate court), her imminent or ultimate  re-sentencing;

* and iatrogenic therapy whose purpose is to convince him that the sex he craved and enjoyed, the sex he experienced, consciously, as thrilling and gratifying and empowering, was traumatizing subconsciously; to brainwash him into realizing that he was/is a “victim” of Abigail who is “scarred for life” even if he wasn’t cognizant of his “trauma” and of being a “victim” of “sexual assault,” and that the woman he “thought” he loved and who gave him the sex he “thought” he craved and enjoyed was a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester.”

Yes, if not for the law, criminal justice system, and media coverage, local, state, national, and even international, nobody would have been hurt, profoundly and permanently, if at all, by this intrigue -not only Abigail, by far most hellishly, and her “loved ones,” family and friends, whose anguish is excruciating, but also the “victim,” assuming she’s lying and that he was her lover and not her victimizer, and his family. Yes, he should file a lawsuit against the media and the State of Michigan.