Fantasy and Reality

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. 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

, , , , , ,

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

,

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.

“Ed” comments at RSOL

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 cliental 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 an outrage and travesty. “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. 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 punitive and  degrading psycho-therapy: gratuitous and costly yet mandated by government, 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 who are exclusively attracted to prepubescent girls and boys.

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

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 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.

Reflections on the Age of Consent

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Under Michigan law and the laws of other states in which the generic age of consent is 16 but sex with 15-year-old’s is a felony, it’s legal for adult men ages 18 to 80 to have sex with girls the moment the clock strikes 12AM on their 16th birthdays if they aren’t in a position of authority over them. And, apparently, this includes those convicted of violent and other mala in se felonies, even dozens or scores of them, but who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense. (I’m not sure of this but, so far, internet searches have not answered my questions.)

But, in Michigan, a 20-year-old woman who has sex with a young man a day or hour or minute before he turns 16 is guilty of “third-degree criminal sexual conduct,” a felony with a maximum sentence of 6-15 years in prison and all the extra/post incarceration punishments, including registration for life or at least 20-30 years as a uniquely monstrous and degenerate criminals, theoretically more dangerous than myriads of brutes and savages with histories of crime beginning at age 13 or 14 or 15 who’ve committed dozens and scores of violent and other mala in se crimes but who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense albeit most of them have surely raped and/or gang-raped men in jails and prisons and/or women and girls in the “free world.”

And if the woman is in a position of authority over him, a teacher or tutor, like Abigail Simon and Kathryn Ronk, she’s guilty of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” punishable by a mandatory-minimum of 8-25 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 25-years to life and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration and electronic parole monitoring with a ankle-tether/”bracelet -if, like Abigail, one spurns a number of plea-bargains and  is convicted at trial of first-degree CSC., even one “count” rather than several.

Clearly, if de facto consensual sex between 15-year-olds and adult men and women is so heinous a crime that those who aren’t in positions of authority over them are guilty of “third-degree criminal sexual conduct” and subject to all the penalties above, and those who are in positions of authority over them could be sentenced to 25-years to life in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution, then how can sex between 16-year-olds and adults not in positions of authority over them be legal?

And, conversely, if consensual sex between 16-year-olds and adults not in positions of power over them is legal -even, apparently, for violent and/or recidivist criminals who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense- then how can adult men and women who have sex with 15-year-olds be charged with felonies and sentenced to months in jail or years in prison and all the other draconian/Orwellian punishments? And how can Abigail Simon be sentenced to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration and electronic parole monitoring?

What’s the difference between the average 16-year-old and the average 15-year-old? Virtually nothing, generally, and in respect to sexuality, absolutely nothing. Moreover, there are millions of 14- and 15-year-olds who are more or far more intelligent, mature, and sexually experienced, sophisticated, and “active” than millions of 16- and 17-year-old’s. To say nothing of the differences, physically and psychologically, between the sexes.

Clearly, to those of us who are sane and just and rational, if factually consensual sex between 16-year-olds and adults not in positions of authority over them is legal but sex between adults and young men and women under age 16 must be criminalized, as I concede for the sake of argument, then I would argue that such acts be criminalized not as felonies but as misdemeanors -at least for adults who’ve never been convicted of violent and other mala in se crimesand a sentence of probation should be mandatory for all first-offenders: 3-6 months of probation with perhaps 50-100 hours of some kind of “community service,” but without the current restrictions on freedoms and intrusions into private lives that don’t apply to violent recidivists who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense; no prison, no jail, no electronic parole monitoring, no public sex-offender registration; and no”sex-offender treatment”: years of psycho-therapy, usually by quacks and zealots and psychotics, and often iatrogenic, to “treat” the offenders for what precisely, what perversion,”paraphilia,”or “disorder,” heterosexuality?

All jurisdictions from nations to states must have an age of consent -whether 16 or 17 or 18 as in all U.S. states, or 14 or 15 as in many other nations, including European countries, or 13 in some nations, including Spain until just recently, or 12 as in Mexico- and some degree of arbitrariness and inequity and hair-splitting is ineluctable -but this is insane.

 

Kathryn Ronk: Crucified Because Her Family and Friends Didn’t Mention the “Victim.”

Tags

, , , , , ,

At sentencing, in a black-and-white unisex jumpsuit and handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons, deferring to the advice of her lawyer and others, she played her assigned role in this ritual of atonement and degradation, acknowledging the heinousness of her crimes and expressing remorse, sincerely or insincerely, and apologizing to her “victim,” a biological man of 15 whom she transported to sexual paradise in a factually consensual relationship.

All for nothing, nothing but an exercise in futility, wishful-thinking, and gratuitous mortification -since the judge, doubtless a feminist and left-liberal and CSA victimologist, fanatical and dogmatic, imposed the maximum sentence of 6-15 years in prison for third-degree criminal sexual conduct. And one of her reasons for doing so was that none of the letters and emails the judge received from family and friends calling for “mercy” for 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” or to anyone nor even a danger to “re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age, and whose crimes are legal acts in dozens of other nations, including European countries -not one of them mentioned the “victim”, apparently, or acknowledged and emphasized  his purely imaginary and definitional “traumatization”

Although Oakland County Judge Nanci Grant appreciated Ronk’s apology, she said she’d taken offense at the letters of support that she had received from the defendant’s friends and family.

“I have never seen letters of support for a defendant with nothing about victim,” Grant Said, according to the Detroit News. “They were all about you and what you were going through. Poor you…You did something you shouldn’t have done.”

In calling for “mercy” for Kathryn, and imploring the judge to impose a “lenient” sentence -i.e., “only” 6-12 months in jail or 1-2 years in prison and a lifetime or at least 20-30 years of draconian/Orwellian persecution- perhaps her family and friends didn’t think it wise to speak of a women they loved and liked as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester,” a species of monster and degenerate, and her lover as a “child” and “victim” of rape and CSA who’ll be “traumatized,” devastated, and “scarred for life.”

Perhaps the reason they didn’t mention the “victim” is because there was no “victim,” factually as opposed to legally, as distinguished from cases of aggravated assault, armed robbery, muggings, home invasions, kidnappings, burglary, vandalism, arson, murder, violent/forcible rape, the sexual assaults of  prepubertal  children, boys and girls, who are too young and immature to consent to sex in a meaningful and comprehending sense. As I’ve explained in scores of articles and blog-posts, the de jure “victim” was not a “child” but a young man of 15 who assented to or initiated sex with his pretty teacher in a de facto consensual relationship.

“Poor you,” the judge sneered at a woman crying and in shackles. Yes, how can people, including her family and friends, be sympathetic toward a “rapist” and “child abuser” and insensitive and apathetic toward a “victim” of “rape” and “child sexual abuse” who’s “traumatized” and “scarred for life” in the imaginations of CSA victimolgists, including this odious and vengeful judge, so callous and cruel that they don’t even mention him and his purely chimerical sufferings.

How can they, including her family and friends, be so callous as not to realize that the travail of a woman they know and love and/or care about, a first-offender convicted of a nonviolent and victimless and malum prohibitum crime, who will be enslaved for at least 6-years if not longer in a hellish prison and then subjected to a lifetime or at least 20-30 years of draconian/Orwellian persecution, including public sex offender registration, is negligible compared to the sufferings of her phantasmal and theoretical “victim,” i.e,  the biological man of 15 she transported to sexual paradise.

It’s possible that at least some of them might agree with me and others I’ve quoted in articles and blog-posts that it’s false and absurd to define such women as “rapists” and “pedophiles” and their lovers as “children” and “victims” whose lives are shattered, profoundly and permanently, by sex they craved and enjoyed far more than their de jure victimizers.

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

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.

Questions But No Answers

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

What of the re-sentencing, ordered long ago after Michigan’s Supreme Court ruled that mandatory-minimum sentences are “unconstitutional”? Internet searches disclose nothing specific, or even current. She’s now been enslaved for over 21 months, first in jail and then in prison. Will she be enslaved for another 3-6 months before she finds out how many more years she’ll be enslaved and abused and degraded and tormented. And at her re-sentencing, she’ll be in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons, probably for over 2-hours as she was at her initial sentencing, when there’s no exigent and practical reason she must be shackled in this fashion or any fashion to protect anyone or to prevent her from escaping, unlike violent male criminals who, if not so restrained, could assault the prosecutor, judge, a jail-guard, etc., possibly even killing them with a single punch (or breaking jaws, noses, eye-sockets, knocking out teeth), or run out of the courtroom and onto the streets to commit more crimes and who knows what else before they’re apprehended in hours or days or weeks or months -if ever.

And what of the lawsuit, filed long ago, which alleges that her “victim” is so traumatized by having had sex with Abigail in spring of 2013 that he can’t study, attend classes, play football, work, etc., and was forced to “drop out” of college and can never return to earn a degree -even though he wasn’t cognizant of being “traumatized,” “devastated,” and “scarred for life” when having sex with Abigail and sending her texts and emails and was under the illusion that he was doing so as a free agent, willingly and knowingly, and that the sex was thrilling and gratifying and empowering, as was the sex-talk, the emails and texts, because that’s how he “thought” he experienced her “crimes” due to “male socialization,” the artificial “social construct” of “manliness”/”masculinity,” and its resultant “false consciousness,” blissfully unaware that his life was being shattered, profoundly and permanently, radically and irremediably.

The Kafkaesque/Orwellian fantasy world of CSA victimology, ludicrous but malevolent. Only CSA victimology and hours and hours of iatrogenic therapy would induce and compel him to realize his traumatization. Only iatrogenic psycho-therapy can mollify but never cure the trauma of which he was unaware until he was subjected to iatrogenic psycho-therapy and CSA victimology propaganda/indoctrination.

 

“Blocked” by Barton

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

On Aug. 1, 2016, I sent this email to four people, including Martin Tieber and Barton Dieters:

In a sane and just and rational country, she would not have even been charged with a crime but simply punished, non-criminally, by dismissal and revocation of her license and expulsion from the profession. All this is more than punishment enough for transporting a biological man of 15 to sexual paradise and “inappropriate”/unprofessional behavior. Imagine what this would entail and how it would blight her life if she couldn’t find another job or was forced to work for the minimum-wage at a fast-food restaurant or wherever. And so forth.

Or, at worst, charged with a misdemeanor and, if convicted, sentenced to 3-6 months of probation and 5-100 hours of “community service,” and perhaps also fined modestly -all of which is not only excessive but gratuitous in respect to “public safety” and deterring and preventing violent and other serious crimes.

No jail, no prison, no “sex-offender treatment (to “treat” her for what exactly, heterosexuality?), no quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration surveillance; no electronic parole monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet”; no public sex-offender registration, with her name,  mug-shot, and address on the internet, observable to everyone with access to a computer(s), not only in the U.S. but in the entire world, so myriads of those who hate her can send her hate-mail and death-threats, and, for many, ostracize, revile, harass, and threaten her in person, and, possibly for some or at least a few, vandalize her property and/or even assault or murder her -all this until she dies at age 77 or 84 or 92. I suggest you go to RSOL and read many or some of the articles and comments as to what it’s like to be on the sex-offendeer registry.

8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution for a first-offender convicted of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita crimes that are legal acts in dozens of other nations, including European countries; a woman who has never committed a violent or other malum 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.

And the generic age of consent in Michigan is 16. If he had been 16, just a few months older, and she had not been his tutor (or had been a tutor at another high school?), their affair would have been legal under Michigan law.

Dieters was so enraged and appalled by what I wrote that he blocked me immediately, so he didn’t read my criticism of him in a second email for which I received an “undeliverable” message:

On this matter, the media (local, state, national) is less a source of neutral and objective news than a tendentious agent of CSA victimology propaganda and inculcation in which all critical/dissenting voices are suppressed, almost as if under a totalitarian regime, or denounced and derided and defamed.

And sensationalism and histrionics for the ratings in the Letourneaw, Lafave, Simon, and many other cases, mass-hysteria and “frenzy” over what is in fact a trivial matter that should be covered swiftly and quietly and, in my opinion, shouldn’t even be a crime and surely not a felony.

In covering this story, Dieters was less a reporter than a cheerleader for the prosecution and CSA victimology propagandist. To offer but one of many examples: a reporter who uses the phrase “ex-tutor guilty of raping her student” is not a journalist, neutral and objective, but an activist, ideologue, propagandist, CSA victimologist, who uses language not to describe but rather to distort and pervert objective reality for ideological purposes.