Willie and Abigail: Fact and Fiction


, , ,

Interviewed by The Nation, sympathetically and compassionately, Willie repined:

The fact is, my name isn’t “Willie.” It’s part of the myth of the case. The name irks me. It was created to play on racial stereotypes -big, ugly, dumb, violent, black- “Willie,” I resent that. They created a fictional character -who seemed believable, but who did not exist. They stripped me of my identity, distorted the facts, and robbed me of my constitutional rights.”

Yes, I’m sure no one has ever called him “Willie” -not his friends and classmates when he was a child and adolescent, nor his relatives, nor his acquaintances, including his criminal accomplices and fellow jail and prison inmates. I’m sure all address and have addressed him as “William” and usually as Mr. William R. Horton or Sir William R. Horton. The only times and places he’s ever been addressed as William Horton or Mister Horton and so forth is in court during his trials, pretrial hearings,and at sentencing, and in appeals and court documents, and on the news and in articles and interviews.

And, no, he’s not “big, ugly, dumb, violent,” nor even “black.” He’s tiny and frail, stunningly handsome, extremely intelligent, utterly non-violent, supremely civilized, and he’s  not even black or “African-American,” apparently, despite his appearance. And he didn’t stab a gas-station attendant 19 times during a robbery and then stuff his body in a garbage can where he bled to death. And when on furlough, in June of 1986, he didn’t fail to return to prison but fled to Maryland where, in April 1987, he “twice raped a woman after pistol-whipping, knifing, binding, and gagging her fiance,” torturing him for 7 hours, and then stole his car until he was shot and captured and sentenced to prison for life with no chance for parole and no furloughs. None of this happened, nor did any of the other violent and mala in se felonies and misdemeanors he surely committed, dozens I’m sure for which he wasn’t imprisoned, jailed, convicted, or even arrested and prosecuted, beginning at age 14 or 15 or even 13 or 12. All this is a “myth,” pure fiction, a distortion of the facts and his true identity and character.

He’s not only a low-IQ brute, savage, monster, and degenerate -he’s also a liar, as blatant as he’s shameless, and/or a psychotic, as are most black criminals. And the Nation treated him with dignity and respect and gave him a chance to lie about his crimes and whine about the denial of his “constitutional rights,” whatever that means exactly. He was also interviewed, no doubt credulously and sympathetically, in Playboy. And, obviously, the leftists at The Nation edited the interview to make this savage and monster appear intelligent, articulate, sympathetic, etc., and put “words in his mouth” so to speak. Did they actually believe all or any of his lies and actually believe he was completely innocent, of any or all of his crimes, a “fictional” monster created by Republicans to win a presidential election. The media turned him into a celebrity, and a victim of “racism” and “stereotypes,” worthy of compassion.

In contrast, the portrayal of Abigail by the media and criminal justice system -her vilification as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester,” a “predator” and monster who is a “threat to society” and to all the children of Michigan, so dangerous that she must be enslaved for 8-years, at least, and then subjected to a life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether and public registration as a uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminal, and the depiction of the young man who consented to or initiated sex with her and might have forced himself on her as a “victim” of CSA and “sexual assault” who’s “traumatized” and “scarred for life- all this is pure fiction.




Beyond Insanity: Massachusetts in the 1970s and 80s and Michigan Today, Willie Horton and Abigail Simon


To quote Wikipedia under the title “Willie Horton”:

William R. Horton (born August 12, 1951) is an American convicted felon who, while serving a life sentence for murder (without the possibility of parole), was the beneficiary of a Massachusetts weekend furlough program. He did not return from the furlough and, ultimately, committed assault, armed robbery, and rape before being captured and sentenced in Maryland where he remains incarcerated. The controversy over Horton’s furlough became a major issue in the 1988 presidential campaign.

On October 26, 1974, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, Horton and two accomplices robbed Joseph Fournier, a 17-year-old gas station attendant, and then fatally stabbed him 19 times after he had cooperated by handing over all of the money in the cash register. His body was stuffed in a trash can so his feet were jammed up against his chin. Fournier died from blood loss. Horton was convicted of murder, sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and incarcerated at the Northeastern Correctional Center in Massachusetts.

On June 6, 1986, he was released as part of a weekend furlough program but did not return. On April 3, 1987, in Oxon Hill, Maryland, Horton twice raped a woman after pistol-whipping, knifing, binding, and gagging her fiance. He then stole the car belonging to the man he had assaulted. He was later shot by Corporal Paul J. Lopez of the Prince George’s County Police Department and captured by Corporal Yusaf A. Muhammad….after a pursuit. On October 20, Horton was sentenced in Maryland to two consecutive life terms plus 85 years. The sentencing Judge, Vincent J. Femia, refused to return Horton to Massachusetts, saying, “I’m not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released. This man should never draw a breath of free air again.

So, incredibly, he was free from June 6, 1986, when released for a weekend furlough, until April of 1987, totally free for almost a year without being captured, until he committed aggravated assault, rape, and car theft in Maryland and was shot and captured by police and ultimately imprisoned for life with no chance of being furloughed or otherwise released. I wonder how many other crimes he committed, and who knows what else, during his almost year-long furlough?

Wikipedia doesn’t mention that Horton, unlike Abigail Simon, who must wear an ankle-tether 24-hours a day for the rest of her life, until she dies in her 70s or 80s or 90s or 100s, was not subjected to electronic parole-monitoring during his weekend furloughs. So every year, this monster, convicted of armed robbery and first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, was completely free and unsupervised for over 100 days a year and for over 300 days from June 6 of 1986 until April of 1987 when shot and captured by police and incarcerated in Maryland.

He could have raped and murdered 10-20 women during his almost year-long furlough and, since Massachusetts didn’t have the death penalty, he would not have been punished for these atrocities and perhaps dozens of other violent and mala in se felonies -and perhaps, given the lunacy of Dukasis and other left-liberals, might have even been given furloughs, completely free once again on weekends to commit even more rapes and murders and other crimes with no fear or possibility of additional punishment.

To quote Wikipedia under the headline “legislative and political background”:

Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Dukasis was the governor of Massachusetts at the time of Horton’s release and while he did not create the furlough program, he had supported it as a method of criminal rehabilitation. The state inmate furlough program, originally signed into law by Republican Governor Francis Sargent in 1972, excluded convicted first-degree murderers. However, 1973, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that this right extended to first-degree murderers, because the law specifically did not exclude them. The Massachusetts legislature quickly passed a bill prohibiting furloughs for such inmates. However, in 1976, Dukasis vetoed this bill arguing it would “cut the heart out of efforts at inmate rehabilitation.”

The program remained in effect through the intervening term of Governor Edward J. King, and was abolished during Dukasis’ final term of office on April 28, 1988, after Dukasis had decided to run for President. This abolition occurred only after the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune had run 175 stories about the furlough program and won a Pulitzer Prize.

Unlike Willie Horton and myriads of other violent and dangerous criminals who were furloughed on weekends in Massachusetts and who knows how many other “progressive” states during the 1970s and 80s with no supervision or electronic parole monitoring -the overwhelming majority of them low-IQ brutes and savages with histories of violence and criminality beginning at age 13 or 14 or 15 and who, with almost no exceptions, committed dozens and scores of violent and mala in se crimes, including first-degree murders, for some even hundreds, including who knows how many while on furlough- Abigail Simon, during her 8-years of enslavement, at least, will not be granted even one weekend furlough, even though she has never committed a violence or mala in se crime in her life and never will and is not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor even a danger to “re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age.

Her only chance to be released from prison for even a day or several hours is for the funeral or “sick bed visit” of an “immediate family member.” To quote the “Office of Legislative Corrections Ombudsman” under the heading “Funeral and Sick Bed visits”:

The following is based on Michigan Department of Corrections Policy Directive 04.04.140 “Funeral and Sick Bed Visits” The Warden may permit a prisoner to leave the facility under escort for the following reasons: 1. to visit a critically ill immediate family member in a hospital or medical car facility; or 2. to attend the private funeral of an immediate family member. Approval for sick bed and funeral visits is at the discretion of the warden. the warden is not required to to approve such visits.

So Abigail’s only chance of being released from prison for a maximum of 12 or 24 hours, on approval of the authorities, if a visit is over 500 miles round-trip, is if an ‘immediate family member” dies or is dying and the warden has the discretion not ‘to approve such visits.” And she must be “escorted” by off-duty correction officers not related to her by blood or marriage.

And I’m sure she’ll be chained like an animal or a feral male criminal, fast and strong and violent and dangerous, in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons during the entire 12 or 24 hours, certainly during the ride to the funeral or “sick bed visit” and back to the prison and likely also during the funeral or “sick bed visit” with the prison guards nearby to vigilantly protect the mourners and others present from a deviant and dangerous “sex-offender.” And will she also be required to wear an ankle-tether/”bracelet” -lest she escape, miraculously, and threaten all the children of Michigan from infants in their cradles to teenage criminals one day short of their 16th birthdays, and those of other states to which she may flee like Willie Horton.

So if one of her closest friends is raped and murdered by one or more of Michigan’s far-to-many Willie Horton-like criminals, Abigail won’t be allowed to leave prison for 12 hours to attend her funeral. And she could not leave the prison for even a few hours -her arms and legs in chains and wearing an ankle-tether and under the control and supervision of two armed correction officers- to attend her sisters wedding.


Reality vs. Fantasy


, ,

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 there are many exceptions, myself for example: “interested in sex,” of course, as are all adolescents, and I often devoured “large quantities of unhealthy food,” as do nearly all male and most female adolescents, but I was not a bully, nor were my two best friends, both deceased, and many other classmates and/or acquaintances. And most of this is just as true of most males in their 20s and many who are older and bullies even in their 50s and 60s, e.g, military officers and coaches and bosses and fathers.)

“Everyone” knows that boys are “brutes.” 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.

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 and fantasize of having sex with adult women (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, if they get lucky, to end the intrigue, and the “victims” gratification, the fulfillment of his fantasies, by ruining the woman’s life -or to ruin her life weeks or months or years after the affair or tryst ended since her “victim” is “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by sex he willingly and knowingly assented to or initiated, in some cases by force and/or threats, and enjoyed far more than the women who “raped” and “molested” him.

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


, , , ,

As noted previously, in a few posts, Abigail was prohibited from receiving and reading a letter and articles I sent to Huron Valley Correctional Facility. As explained, vaguely and with no specificity, my words were a threat to “order” and “discipline.” Apparently, the left=feminist ideologues and totalitarians who rule the prison believe that Abigail would have gone berserk and attacked the guards and other inmates, perhaps inciting a riot or mass revolt, had she been allowed to read my heretical and “politically-incorrect” arguments and contentions.

So, in effect, I’m a victim of censorship, denied the right to correspond with Abigail and ask her many questions about her intrigue with a 15-year-old student and biological man, her phantasmal and theoretical “victim” who she claims forced himself on her three times and “controlled her life” by threats and manipulation, her arrest, prosecution, trial, why she rejected the plea-bargains, her life in jail and prison, her life as a child, adolescent, and adult before it was needlessly shattered, forever, by the criminal justice system, her ideals, values, and opinions on various issues and subjects, etc.

I could be wrong, but I assume that Abigail is a left-liberal, probably more liberal than far left. And, moreover, that she defines and thinks of herself as a feminist, however defined, broadly or narrowly, vaguely or precisely. Does she know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life.

In pre-feminist America, including the 1960s, the decade of the “Summer of 42” and the “sexual revolution, “statutory rape” laws didn’t even apply to women in most jurisdictions. And if they did so apply to women in some states or if women who had sex with young men under age 18 were guilty of a “moral’s offense,” however defined, how many women were arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail or prison for such offenses? And even if incarcerated, none of them, upon their release, were subjected to years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet,” and registration for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, their mug-shots, names, and addresses on the internet for all to see.

None of these laws and policies, these draconian/Orwellian punishments, inflicted on Abigail and myriads of other women for no exigent and practical reasons, would exist if not for feminism. Nor would adult women who have sex with young men under statutory age be absurdly defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” and “child molesters” if not for feminists and their dogmas and fantasies of undifferentiated equality between the sexes, “sex-equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes,” to quote John Derbyshire. Nor would the young men who consented to or initiated sex with them be defined as “victims” of “rape” and CSA who are traumatized and “scarred for life.”


An English Woman Imprisoned for Criticizing and “Harassing” Muslims can Receive Mail and Letters From People in the United States, Including me, and all other Countries, but not Abigail Simon


, ,

“Grooming” in the United Kingdom: for decades, in Rotherham, Telford, Oxford, and other UK cities, Pakistani Muslim predators, savages, and monsters have abducted, enslaved, drugged, raped, gang-raped, forced into prostitution, tortured, brutalized, and terrorized myriads of poor and working-class English girls, overwhelming adolescents but also prepubescent girls, some as young as 10 and 11. The police knew about these atrocities but did nothing lest they be vilified as “racist” and “Islamophobic” by the ruling-elites and governing-classes. And the media was complicit in it’s anti-“racist”/”Islamophobic” mendacity, fanaticism, and righteousness, suppressing and ignoring and denying the truth for decades.

Finally, a few of these sadists and savages are on trial for their heinous and horrendous crimes. And just recently, Tommy Robinson was sentenced to a year in prison for protesting these atrocities outside a courthouse where some of these monsters and subhuman beasts are being tried for “grooming.”

Many others have been punished, and imprisoned, for telling the truth about Islam, opposing massive Muslim immigration, and criticizing and “harassing” Muslims, including Jayda Fransen, a Britain First deputy leader jailed after being found guilty of four counts of “religiously aggravated harassment.” writes Patrick Cloutier at vdare.com (3/23/2018):

Jayda Fransen, the Britain First leader whose videos about Muslim atrocities were retweeted by President Trump in November of last year, is in jail in the UK for “religiously aggravated harassment,” i.e., free speech, and protesting Muslim rapists. I learned that she can receive mail and letters in prison. Her address in prison:

Prison NO: A7921EDFRANSEN, HMP Bronzefield, Woodthorpe RD, Ashford, Middlesex, TW15 3JZ, United Kingdom

The UK is no longer a free county for those who criticize and tell the truth about Islam and Muslims, including terrorists, murderers, and gang-rapists of English girls, and oppose Muslim immigration. The country that invented freedom of speech and other basic rights and liberties now arrests, prosecutes, and imprisons men and women for exercising what should be their right to freedom of speech.

In contrast, Muslims are free to hate, vilify, and demonize “infidels,” i.e. native UK citizens, to provoke violence against “infidels, to defend acts of terrorism, an epidemic of assaults with knives in London resulting in murders and serious injuries, sexual outrages against English girls, and “religiously harass” generally. I doubt if a single Muslim has been convicted of much less sentenced to prison for “religiously aggravated harassment.” Or even arrested and prosecuted?

But, surprisingly, those imprisoned for criticizing and telling the truth about Islam and Muslims have the right to receive and read mail and letters from not only friends and family but also strangers in the UK and US and many other countries. But Abigail Simon, Kathryn Ronk, and other inmates have no such right in Michigan.

So from west-central Wisconsin, I could have mailed a letter that would have been flown all the way to New York, Boston, or wherever, and then flown across the Atlantic Ocean to London, I assume, and then by road to a prison in Ashford, Middlesex, and Jayda Fransen would have received and read it as she has with who knows how many other letters of support and sympathy from people in the UK and who knows how many other countries. And so, too, with Tommy Robinson, I assume. But Abigail Simon and Kathryn Ronk were prohibited from receiving and reading articles and letters I sent them from a neighboring state.

Finally, to contrast the evil and insanity of the U.S. with that of the United KIngdom: if a few of these monsters and savages are convicted of “grooming” -i.e., abducting, enslaving, drugging, raping, gang-raping, beating, torturing, brutalizing, and terrorizing poor and working-class English girls- I’m almost certain that none of them -not even the worst of the worst and the ring-leaders- will serve as many years in prison as Abigail Simon and Mary Kay Letourneau, or even Kathryn Ronk, to say nothing of the Georgia teacher who was sentenced to 40-years in prison for having sex with a student or the Nevada woman who was sentenced to life in prison for allegedly “forcing” a teenage male to touch her breast.


In a Sane and Just and Rational Country


, , , , , , ,

In a sane and just and rational country, women teachers would be punished, non-criminally, by dismissal and revocation of her license and expulsion from the profession, whether for 5-10 years or for life depending on the facts and circumstances, the aggravating and mitigating factors. Or, at worst, charged with misdemeanors, however defined, and sentenced to 6-12 months of probation and perhaps 50-100 hours of some kind of community service: no prison, no jail, no “sex-offender treatment,” no quasi-totalitarian supervision, no electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” they can never remove (not even when bathing, showering, having sex), no registration for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely deviant and dangerous criminals -all this for first-offenders convicted of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita “crimes,” women who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in their lives and never will and are not a “threat to society” or to anyone or even a danger to “re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age, the only crime in which the “victim” enjoys the actus reus (i.e., the sex) far more than the woman who “rapes” and “molests” him under the law and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical victimization.

If he had been 16 rather than 15, just a few months and weeks older….


, , , , ,

The generic age of consent is 16 in Michigan. If Abigail’s “victim” had been 16 rather than 15, just a few months and weeks older, and she had not been his tutor, their affair would have been legal under Michigan Law -and that’s assuming she’s lying about his forcing himself on her, in which case she would have been the victim under the law and he would have been the criminal.

But since he was 15 rather than 16, just a few months and weeks short of his 16th birthday, and she was his tutor, thereby in a position of authority over him which, theoretically if not empirically, enhances the gravity of her crimes and the severity of his “victimization.” she was guilty of a felony with a maximum sentence of 25-years to life in prison and a mandatory minimum of 8-25 years in prison and a life-sentence of electronic-parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” she’s prohibited from removing, even when bathing, showering, and having sex with a spouse or paramour, and registration for life as a uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminal, her mug-shot, name, and address on the internet for all to see and act on such information: hate-mail, death threats, vandalism of property, criminal assaults. And years of “sex-offender treatment,” during and after her imprisonment, and years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision.

Ponder the insanity and absurdity and iniquity and arbitrariness! To repeat: to call all of this insane is actually an understatement; it’s beyond insanity. How I’d love to spend an hour or two in a bar with 7 or 8 of the politicians who were most culpable for enacting and imposing these grotesque, draconian, irrational, arbitrary, iniquitous, Orwellian laws; and in regard to Abigail and Kathryn Ronk and their hideously draconian punishments, obviously “cruel and unusual” in the sense of being totally unnecessary. How fascinating it would be to hear them try to defend such laws and the sentences of Abigail, Kathryn Ronk, and many other women, and the dogmas and myths upon which they’re based, and to refute my arguments and contentions.

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


, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


, , , , , , , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Will I Die Before Abigail is Released From Prison?


I’m 69 and “not long for this world,” as some put it, and there are no other worlds. The end is near -how near I have no idea at this moment- and there is no afterlife. If I was religious, e.g., a devout Christian, and believed in God and an afterlife, an eternity in heaven or hell for my “immortal” and immaterial “soul,” I’d be terrified of dying even if I was 95% certain I was going to heaven rather than hell since I believed that Jesus was the son of God who was born of a virgin and resurrected after his death by crucifixion. If Christianity is true, then I will “burn in hell for eternity.” But since the idea of hell is a sick and evil fantasy, I’m not worried, and have never worried, not even for a moment.

For an atheist who rejects the tenet of mind/body dualism, the fantasy of a soul and afterlife, what’s to fear in and of death? Death is oblivion, nothingness, the cessation of consciousness, the end of pain and suffering, liberation and surcease from the “hell that is other people,” the annihilation of a lifetime of memories in which (for me and for most people) the bad and worse far exceed the good and better. Death is like falling asleep, with no dreams, and not waking. Thus I face the end with stoicism and equanimity.

And some of the worst memories and thoughts that will die when I die are those of Abigail crying not only after but also before hearing the guilty verdicts; Abigail at her sentencing, so debilitated and mortified by fear and angst and despair and lack of sleep that she could barely walk or even stand and almost collapsed twice; depressing images of her crying with damp and matted hair and no make-up and wearing the same denim unisex jump-suit that is worn by violent and/or recidivist male criminals, shackled for over 2-hours in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons when there was no exigent and practical reason she had to be shackled in this manner or in any manner to protect anyone and/or to prevent her from escaping; thoughts of her life in jail and then prison and her life after prison, a life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” she can never remove and public sex-offender registration, etc.

Given the SC decision, she’ll be enslaved for almost 5 more years, at least, and perhaps longer. I’ll be 73 or older when she’s finally released. So it’s possible, if not likely, that I’ll die when she’s still in prison.