A Judge Dismisses the Lawsuit Against the Catholic Diocese

Tags

Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon lawsuit, Barton Dieters, media sex hysteria, women as rapists

Writes John Tunison at mlive.com:

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

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

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

Good news for the Diocese, but not for Abigail?

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

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

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

“…not enough was done to prevent Simon  from abusing the teen.” If the “victim” experienced acts of coitus and fellatio and so forth with Abigail and also the hundreds of emails and texts they exchanged as “abusive” rather than thrilling and gratifying and empowering, all he had to do was end the relationship. And if Abigail was the initiator and aggressor, all he had to do was say “no” and he would not have been “abused” by having sex with an attractive and desirable woman. We’re supposed to believe that a 6’3″, 200 lb. biological man and football star was so terrified of Abigail because of her age and power and authority -when he outweighed her by almost a 100 pounds and was at least 6-8 times stronger in the upper-body- that he was too afraid to say no, initially, and repel her importunities, assuming she was the “aggressor,” and then too fearful to end the relationship. And, also, that he was too young and immature to consent to or initiate sex, knowingly and willingly, with an adult female. (I discuss this at length in “More on Traumatization” and also in many other article/blog-posts.)

The reason he assented to or initiated sex with Abigail and didn’t end the affair is because the sex and emails and texting was thrilling and gratifying and empowering, and that’s assuming he didn’t rape and terrorize her and “control her life.”

More on Traumatization

Tags

age of consent, MRAs, traumatized

“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.

What of 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 fundamentalists-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 inportunities.

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 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 crazy and violent and unrestrainedly salacious.

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 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.

Judge Upholds 8-25 Year Prison Sentence after Supreme Court Rules that Mandatory Minimum Sentences are “Unconstitutional”

Tags

"traumatization", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon Appeal, Abigail Simon resentencing, Barton Dieters

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 and have written on this matter, I’m sure he was not only criticized, not only rebuked, respectfully, but also condemned, denounced, traduced, vilified, and subjected to a barrage of hate-mail and surely 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,” possibly even a “rapist” and “pedophile,” who can never be cured but only deterred and controlled by imprisonment and quasi-totalitarian supervision, a “predator” who was likely to re-offend by having sex with young men under statutory age and, perhaps, also molesting prepubescent children.

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 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.)

Since Sullivan had already upheld her 8-25 year prison sentence almost a year before the Court of Appeals ruling, shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling,  he obviously did so again for the same reasons, assuming he made such a decision.

It’s now May of 2017 and she’s been enslaved since November 2014, almost 2 months in jail and now well over 2 years in prison, and the Supreme Court will now decide her fate, apparently in Summer.

I’m 99% certain the Supreme Court, like the Court of Appeals, will uphold her convictions. It’s possible they will vacate her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring, though I assume they don’t have the power to vacate her life-sentence of public sex-offender registration, since this punishment -which could be defined as “cruel and unusual” for Abigail and myriads of other men and women in the sense of being wholly gratuitous- is federally-mandated. I don’t know if they have the power to reduce her insanely draconian prison sentence.

If, miraculously, they overturn her convictions, she’ll be tried again, almost surely convicted, and crucified by the same draconian/Orwellian punishments -unless her “victim,” now an adult, doesn’t want to testify against her in another trial? If so, does he have that right or can the DA and a judge force him to testify against his will by threatening to charge him with a felony or misdemeanor?

So her only hope of being a free woman again -no jail, prison, mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, electronic parole monitoring, public sex-offender registration- is if the Supreme Court overturns her convictions and her “victim” refuses to testify against her and the authorities, prosecutors and judges, cannot force him to do so, a possibility so remote as to be almost inconceivable.

So, bearing a miracle, it’s all over. She is doomed. She’ll never be free again. Unlike her “victim,” she’ll be traumatized, devastated, and “scarred for life.” And persecuted and punished for life.

 

Teresa Giudice’s Prison Hell

For Teresa Giudice, prison was hell. She was away from her husband and four daughters, She had no privacy and creature comforts. Inmates brawled in front of her -when they weren’t intimidating her and humiliating her for her bathroom etiquette.(Reality News, Jan. 11, 2016.)

In her first television interview since being released from federal prison, “Real Housewives of New Jersey” star Teresa Giudice said she experienced horrible living conditions while incarcerated and described it as like “living in hell.”

“I mean there was mold in the bathrooms. There was not running water constantly. The showers were freezing cold…I mean, the living conditions were horrible. Like, horrible,” she said in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Amy Robach that aired Tuesday on “Good Morning America.” “There were some nights we didn’t even have heat…It was hell.”

….In addition to the living conditions she described as being “horrible,” she said she had no privacy. In fact, she nicknamed her shared room “the boom-boom room” because so  many fellow inmates had sex there.

Asked whether she ever feared for her life while she was incarcerated, Giudice said she never did, although there were fights that resulted in some inmates being “shipped out.” She added: “Believe me…I got pointed at and they were trying to start drama with me. But I just walked away.”

“…(T)here’s a lot of drama,” she said. “That’s all there is, is drama. And I never lived with so many women in my life before, I mean that’s all they…they thrive on drama. It was crazy to me.” (“Real Housewives’ Star Teresa Giudice Say Prison Was Like ‘Living in Hell’,” abcnews.go.come. 2/15/2017.)

Imagine: enslaved for 11 and 1/2 months, almost a year, some 350 days, 8400 hours, with no privacy. And Abigail will endure 8-years, at least, 96 months, over 400 weeks, almost 3000 days, over 70,000 hours, with no privacy! In a prison with far more “drama” and danger.

 

Beyond Insanity: Anarchy in Chicago

Tags

"anarcho-tyranny", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon resentencing, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, Kathryn Ronk, Mary Letorneau media bias, media sex hysteria, Melissa Bittner, sex offender registry, sex offenders, women as rapists, women sex offenders

From the Guardian:

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

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

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

And of the 16% arrested for murder and the less than 4% arrested for non-fatal shootings, what percentage will be prosecuted, and convicted, and imprisoned? And the failure or refusal to arrest, prosecute, convict, and imprison over 95% of those who committed all these murders and shootings will result in myriads of other violent and mala in se crimes, including aggravated assaults, muggings, armed robberies, burglaries, acts of vandalism, home invasions, abductions, rapes, gang-rapes, and murders committed against men and women who aren’t criminals and are thus innocent victims.

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

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

Beyond Insanity

Tags

age of consent, registry, sex offender registry, sex offenders

Every year, in Detroit alone, violent male recidivists who should be in prison commit hundreds of rapes and murders and thousands of aggravated assaults, armed robberies, muggings, shootings, burglaries, acts of vandalism, etc. -in a state in which Abigail Simon was sentenced to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution for allowing a biological man of 15 to penetrate her in a factually consensual relationship -assuming she’s lying about his forcing himself on her- and Kathryn Ronk was sentenced to 6-15 years in prison, under a plea-bargain, and a lifetime or at least 20-30 years of quasi-totalitarian supervision for the same nonviolent and victimless and malum prohibitum felony.

And of the recidivists who commit such violent and other mala in se crimes in Detroit and other Michigan cities, what percentage are arrested? And of those arrested, what percentage are prosecuted? And of those prosecuted, what percentage are convicted? And of those convicted, what percentage are incarcerated in prisons and jails? And of those imprisoned, what percentage are sentenced to 8-25 years of enslavement, or 6-15 years under a plea-bargain?

And think of all the time and money that has been and will be wasted investigating, arresting, jailing, prosecuting, convicting, imprisoning, treating, harassing, and supervising Abigail Simon and Kathryn Ronk, first-offenders who’ve never committed a violent or other malum in se crime in their lives and never will and who are 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.

This isn’t inequity, this isn’t injustice -this is insanity! Actually, to call this insane is an understatement. It’s beyond insanity!

Dorothy Rabinowitz and Philip Jenkins

Tags

"traumatization", Abigail Simon, age of consent, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, Kathryn Ronk, Melissa Bittner, sex offenders, traumatized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

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

Tags

"traumatization", Abigail Simon, age of consent, media sex hysteria, sex offenders, traumatized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

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. 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”

Tags

"traumatization", Abigail Simon, age of consent, Kirk Douglas, sex offenders, traumatized, women sex offenders

The “Maestro,” commenting at RSOL:

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

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

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

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

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

 

Security Levels: Why II rather than I?

Tags

Abigail Simon, women sex offenders

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

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

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

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

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