Michael Kuehl, 2004

William F. Buckley reminisces about a dinner in Monaco with Prince Ranier and David Niven:

"Waiting for the first course to arrive, David Launched into an autobiographical account of his seduction at age 15 by an accomplished lady of the night. The words spoken were lightly ribald, amusing, evocative. Before the second course was served, the prince was a rollicking companion..."
(William F. Buckley, "10 Friends," Forbes FYI, Fall 2000, p. 138.)

Obviously, in telling this "ribald" and "rollicking" tale, Niven didn't think of himself as a "victim" of "rape" or "child sexual abuse." Nor did Buckley, Ranier, or anyone else, male or female, think any such thing. Nor, apparently, did Buckley and the editors of Forbes FYI think any such thing in 2000, when this article was published. And indeed, even today, many people would react like the prince or with a more subdued amusement.

But if Niven were alive today and had "launched" into this "autobiographical account" as the guest speaker at a convention of "mental health professionals," social workers, police investigators, victim's advocates, prosecutors, and judges, virtually no one would be "rollicking," or even mildly amused. At best or worst, there might be some nervous laughter concealed by hands over mouths.

Almost to a man, and especially woman, poor David would be viewed as a "victim" of "child sexual abuse," and his delight in telling this story would be attributed to "denial" and/or "male socialization." The virtually unanimous response would be indignation, for many even rage, directed at the "rapist" and especially a society that could brainwash a "victim" and "survivor" into believing he enjoyed a heinous and life-destroying violation.

If Niven's joyous "rite of passage" or "coming of age" had occurred in America today and was reported to the authorities, the "accomplished lady of the night" would be sentenced to anywhere from 6-months in county jail, if lucky, to 10-20 years in prison.

At sentencing, prosecutors and psychiatrists would compare his trauma to that of people who've experienced warfare, torture, vicious beatings, dog attacks, gruesome car accidents, and internment in concentration camps. The woman would be classified as a deviant and compelled to underago "sex-offender treatment" as well as register with the police for 20 years if not the rest of her life so people could be notifed that a "convicted sex offender" is living in their community or neighborhood.

And so, too, with the woman played by Jennifer O'Neal in The Summer of 42. If this movie were remade today, it should end or begin with Jennifer O'Neal being transported to prison in handcuffs attached to a waistchain and leg-irons.

"This is also an area where the traditional double standard remains powerfully apparent, in that Western culture attaches little stigma to a relationship between an underaged boy and an adult woman,"
wrote Philip Jenkins in Priests and Pedophiles. (p. 83.)

He surely can't believe this anymore. In Jenkins' defense, he probably wrote this in the early-middle 1990s, and his book was published in 1996, a year before Mary Letourneau was transformed by the media into the most opprobrious female sex criminal in American history, and ultimately sentenced to 7½ years in prison with no possibility of parole, for "fallling in love" with a Somoan "child" who hounded her for sex and forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse.

But well before 1996, amongst large and influential segments of our ruling elites and governing classes, a consensus had emerged that sex between women and underaged teenage males was a grave crime that devastated and "traumatized" the "victim."

Many people, especially men, may still attach "little stigma to a relationship between an underaged boy and an adult woman," but not those with the power to ruin lives and massively influence public opinion: the zealots, charlatans, ignoramuses, and paltry inquisators of the "child sexual abuse industry," and, consequently, most politicians, journalists, newspaper editors, pundits, police officers, prosecutors, and judges.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, of course, CSA victimologists had other demons, largely chimerical, to exorcise. Remember McMartin, Bakersfield, Jordan, MN, the Kelly Michaels case, "Little Rascals," the Amirault case, El Paso, Country Walk, Wenatchee, WA, etc.

The "ritual sex-abuse hoax," the "mass-molestation" daycare and "sex-ring" cases, the "recovered memory" insanity - now that all of this has been "discredited," exposed as fantasy and hysteria to all but the most deluded and irrational "true believers," the "child sexual abuse industry" has redirected its fanaticism, enormous power, vast fortune, and inquisatorial cruelty to uprooting the pandemic evil of what was once called "statutory rape," with a growing emphasis on consensual sex between adult women and underaged teenage males. And since the Letourneau hysteria, the media has served as an agent of victimology propaganda, just as it did while covering McMartin and similar outrages during the 1980s.

Carol Tavris summarizes, only somewhat satirically, a dogma of the "child sexual abuse industry":

"Teenagers, whom we all know have no sexual feelings of any kind until they are 16 (at which time they magically become mature adults), are incapable of wishing to have sexual relations, so if they do have seuxal relations before age 16, said relations must be oppressive, traumatic, and coerced."
(Carol Tavris, "The Uproar Over Sexual Abuse Research and it Findings," Society, May/June 2000, p. 15.)

Tavris is wrong about one thing. Increasingly, the magical age is now 18. For purposes of sexual autonomy and volition, a "child" is any "minor" from an infant in her cradle to a teenage criminal one day short of his 18th birthday. Then, magically, as the clock strikes 12AM on their 18th birthdays, "children" metamorphose into "adults."

To quote Rind et al. in The Skeptical Inquirer:

"...Who is a 'child'? CSA came to include any kind of sexual encounter between a minor under eighteen and someone five or more years older. And what is 'abuse?' Victimologists began with rape and incest, but then stretched definitions of CSA to include non-contact episodes (e.g., flashing), sex between children of differing ages, and episodes of mature adolescents willingly participating in sex with older teens or adults.Yet they maintained that all these encounters were traumatizing, using dramatic analogies such as slavery, head-one car crashes, being mauled by a dog, and torture to convey their belief about CSA's nature."

CSA victimologists and their dupes believe that

The media has created

"the image that CSA produces intensely negative effects for all of its victims"
and
"some have attempted to explain much or all of adult psychopathology as a consequence of CSA."
(Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman, and Philip Tromovitch, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," Psychological Bulletin, 1998, Vol. 124, p. 22.)

For debunking such idiocies in their infamous Psychological Bulletin article, i.e., for telling the truth and living in the real world and getting the facts staight, Rind et al. were officially condemned by the United States Congress.

Differentiating between pubescents and young children and between males and females - e.g., contrasting the incestual rape of a 5-year-old girl with "the willing sexual involvement of a mature 15-year-old adolescent boy with an unrelated adult"...(Rind., p. 23.) - was "perhaps the researchers most inflammatory finding (Tavris)."

Victimologists of the right as well as the left were also outraged by their contention that boys are innately different from girls and thus far more likely to react positively to sexual encounters with adults -with "Dr. Laura" and her ilk viewing this distinction as an insidious endorsement of homosexual exploitation of male adolescents.

Unlike the unjustly maligned Rind et al. study, Harris Mirkin's notorious article (for which he almost lost his job at the University of Missouri-Kansas City) is full of leftist nonsense, fashionable and unfashionable, harmless and harmful. Nonetheless, he accurately describes the bizarre and pernicious dogmas of CSA victimologists:

"In the same way as adolescents are merged with little children, all sexual activity is equated with violent or coerced activity. Issues of control in the sexual area are treated differently from those in other areas. Pubescents and adolescents are usually thought of as hard to control, and attempts to mold their behavior and initiate them into legal and enjoyable adult activities are considered valuable.

However, in the sexual area these assumptions are reversed. It is asserted that they are easily controlled, and they are conceptualized as little children who have no sexual desire of their own and can only be passive victims. According to the dominant formulas the youth are always seduced. They are never considered partners or initiators or willing participants even if they are the hustlers...

It is argued that they cannot give consent, that they cannnot enjoy sex even if they think that they do, and that they suffer physical and psychological harm even if they are not aware of it. Contradictory symptoms (like heightened or reduced sexual desire) are attributed to childhood sexual experiences. All future evils will be attributed to past experiences of child abuse, while all future good things that are done will be attributed to overcoming the effects of child abuse, incest, or molestations...

Moreover, harmful effects that come from social attitudes towards intergenerational sex are confounded with harmful effects that come from the acts themselves."

(Harris Mirkin, "The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia," ipecweb/Library, 6-6-2003, p. 9.)

What he means, of course, is that "harmful effects" induced by negative "attitudes towards intergenerational sex" are attributed to the "acts themselves."

The belief that children have no sexual feelings and are "traumatized" for life by even a single act of nonaggravated molestation is demonstrably false even when applied to prepubescent children. Nonetheless, apart from a lunatic fringe, nobody is advocating the legalization of sex between adults and prepubescent children. Thus it's imperative to clearly distinguish between young children and pubescent teenagers and, just as importantly, between males and females. 

It can't be emphasized often or strongly enough that when victimologists argue that "children" are "incapable of wishing to have sexual relations," "cannot give consent," are always "traumatized," and the like, they're refering not only to biological children but also to pubescent teenagers, and to male as well as female adolescents, and to male teenagers who have sex with women as well as homosexuals. And that is why their ideas are so preposterous, irrational, stupid, delusional, and malignant. 

Almost everything I'll say from now on 
applies exclusively to sex between women and young men under statutory age.

Such dogmas are espoused with fanatical unconditionality, wholesale denial of the realities of age and intrinsic sexual differentiation, obliviousness to facts and circumstances, an inability or refusal to make intelligent, rational, objective, and pellucid distinctions. Thus it doesn't matter if the "victim" is a male and the "victimizer" a female. It doesn't matter if the "child" is as old as 16 or 17; it doesn't matter if he's "sexually-active," if he's had sex 39 or 139 times before with 6 or 16 different partners; it doesn't matter if he insists he's not a "victim" and that the intrigue was "positive" and "rewarding." 

It doesn't matter if he's the initiator, the predator, the aggressor, even to the point of assaulting the woman - as in the actual case of Melissa Bittner. It doesn't even matter if he initiated the affair by raping the woman - as in the actual case of Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall. Even a punk who rapes his teacher is "incapable of wishing to have sexual relations," not even with the woman he assaulted, and "said relations must be oppressive, traumatic, and coerced" -for him! Even a punk who rapes his teacher is a "victim" of "sexual assault" and "child sexual abuse"!

Since reality doesn't conform to victimologist tenets, harm must be invented. The trauma of victims and deviance of abusers must be willed and imagined. Reality must be tortured and mutilated to fit the procrustean bed of victimology theory. Because words are used in a moral and ideological sense, facts are irrelevant and language is perverted to create a fantasy world in which reality is not only distorted but turned on its head. 

Since the language of violence, brutality, coercion, abuse, and perversion is used to describe consensual, usually caring, relationships, and since male adolescents are conflated with little girls, the understandable hatred of men who rape and molest young children is projected upon adult women who have love affairs and "one-night stands" with virile teenage males under age 18.

Since definitions and judgements are disconnected from objective reality, the women are always "predators" and "manipulators" even when their "victims" are the predators and manipulators. The "victim" is always "seduced" by the woman even if he's the aggressor and initiator. 

The women are vilified as "pedophiles" and "child molesters" for having sex with teenage males as old as 16 and 17 who might be 6',4" with 10-inch penises and outweigh their "abusers" by 50-150 pounds. They're described as "rapists" and perpetrators of "sexual assault" when there's obviously no "use or threat of force or violence" to secure compliance and their definitional "victims" are perfectly willing and knowing participants. Most insanely, both in the media and under the law, the women are guilty of "rape" and "sexual assault" even when they're raped and sexually assaulted by their theoretical "victims." As we'll see, I'm talking about actual cases, not hypothetically.

Pedophilia: 

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the subject knows that a pedophile is a man (or male adolescent) with a sexual fixation on young and prepubescent children. 

Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield elaborate: 

"...The DSM-IV American Psychiatric Association (1994) defines pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubesent child or children (emphasis added), and requires that the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupuational, or other important areas of functioning. It is therefore possible for an individual who meets these criteria to have never engaged in illegal sexual behaviors. At the same time, not all sex offenders against a minor are pedophiles. All mental health professionals acting in an expert witness capacity should know this distinction." /"Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases," 
in Coping With Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony  
(Los Angeles: Law and Psychology Press, Fifth Edition, 1995), p. 1336.

Increasingly, "pedophilia" is defined as sex between adults and "children" (i.e., "minors" under age 18). Only those who use this absurd definition - and who also believe that men and women are exactly the same in their sexual urges and proclivities - could brand such women "pedophiles." 

If adults are "pedophilles" for having sex with teenage "minors" as old as 16 or 17, then an 18-year-old girl is a "pedophile" for having sex with a 17-year-old male who seduced her! I'm sure that even the worst fanatics, if cornered in an argument, would insist that they don't believe anything so ridiculous. But if so, then at what magical age does an adult become a "pedophile" for having sex with teenage "minors" as old as 16 and 17: 20, 21, 24, 27, 29? And what's the magical age for the "victim"? Is a 24-year-old female who has sex with a 17-year-old male a "pedophile," but not a 21-year-old who has sex with a 16-year-old, or vice versa. 

Or let's apply the age-disparities of 4 or 5 years typically used by CSA victimolgogists. If 5 years, then a 22-year-old adult female who has sex with a 17-year-old male is a "pedophile," but not a 21-year-old man who has sex with a 17-year-old girl. If 4 years, then a 20-year-old is a "pedophile" for having sex with a 16-year-old but not for having sex with a 17-year-old. Such nonsensical arbitrariness and "hairsplitting" is unavoidable when one defines "pedophilia" as consensual sex between adults and teenaged "minors."

Moreover, even if a woman has sexual contact with a young child, she isn't necessarily a "pedophile" under the APA definition. In fact, it's debatable if a woman can even be a "pedophile" under this definition.

Child Molestation:  

"Child molester" evokes images of "dirty old men" lewdly fondling little children. The term connotes a violation of purity and innocence, an exploitation of impotence and vulnerabliltiy, physically and psychologically, the abuse of the weak and small by the large and powerful.

But in affairs between women and underaged teenage males, the "child" is almost invariably bigger, stronger, more aggressive, more lascivious, more physically intimidating, than the adult. For this reason alone, it's ludicrous to decribe such acts as "child molestation." And so, too, with "child sexual abuse"!

First, pubescent teenage males are not children but young men and, secondly, unless the woman uses sex as an instrument of vengeance and humiliation, exactly how is he "sexually abused." 

Rind et al. summarize the findings of several studies: 

"A number of researchers have commented on differences in male and female reactions to CSA. Schultz and Jones (1983) noted that men tended to see these sexual experiences as an adventure and as curiosity-satisfying, whereas most women saw it as an invasion of their body or a moral wrong. 

Fritz et al. (1981) made nearly identical observations. 

West and Woodhouse (1993), comparing their male sample with Nash and West's (1985) female sample, observed that women's remembered reactions at the time were 

"predominantly of fear, unpleasant confusion, and embarrassment...(while men's) remembered reactions were mostly either indifference, tinged perhaps with slight anxiety, or of positve pleasure, the latter being particularly evident in contacts with the opposite sex (emphasis added)."

These gender differences in reactions to CSA experiences are consistent with more general gender differences in response to sex among young persons. 

For example, boys and girls report very different reactions to their first experience of sexual intercourse (Sorenson, 1972), with girls predominantly reporting negative reactions such as feeling afraid, guilty, or used, and boys predominantly reporting positive reactions such as feeling excited, happy, and mature. These differences are likely due to an interaction between biologically based gender differences and social learning of traditional sex roles. 
(Rind et al., p. 43.)

Especially "biologically based gender differences." "Social learning of traditional sex roles" - which has been eviscerated by 35 years of feminist catechism and indoctrination - is rooted in innate sex differences. Since biology preceded culture, biology created culture, not vice versa. Culture is what we make of our biology. 

It should also be emphasized that they're refering to young boys as well as pubescent teenagers, and to male children and adolescents who've had sexual experiences with homosexuals as well as adult woman. If such research were limited to male teenagers under age 18 who had consensual sex with adult females, the "victims'" reactions would be almost exclusively positive.

Rape: 

First, unless one believes that teenage males have the mentality of young chilldren, the sex is consensual. In defining "consent" under the law, the question is not whether young men under age 18 are as sexually mature as Mike Tyson or William Jefferson Clinton. The question is whether they know what they're doing when they have sex with adult females. 

Likewise, when punishing teenage criminals under age 18, the question is not whether the average 15-year-old is as mature as the average 20- or 25-year-old. The queston is whether they're old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to murder, assault, rape, steal, etc.; whether they know what they're doing, legally and morally, when they commit violent felonies. And in every state and jurisdiction, teenage males ages 14-17 are routinely "waived into adult court" for committing murders, assaults, robberies, violent rapes, etc. (In many jurisdictions, even children as young as 12 and 11 and 10 can be prosecuted as adults.) But even if they aren't "waived into adult court," the law still assumes that teenagers under age 18 are old and mature enough to form the criminal intent to commit murder and other serious transgressions.

Clearly, if teenage "minors" are old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to perpetrate violent crimes, then they're old and mature enough to consent to or inititate sex with adult females. If they know what they're doing, legally and morally, when they murder and rape and rob and break into homes, then they know what they're doing when they have sex with women.

Victimologists are scandalized when defenders of Mary Letourneau note the Vili was exceptionally mature for his age; that he was pubescent at age 10 and, though only 13 when their love was consummated, acted more like a 16- or 17-year-old; and that he was the aggressor, hounding Mary for sex and forcing himself on her the first time they had intercourse. 

But let's assume that Vili forced himself on Mary under different circumstances - i.e, a situation in which Mary was in no sense to blame, in which there was no prior frendship and she did nothing to encourage his aggressions - and that she reported the assault to the police. If so, Vili would have been arrested and charged with rape under Washington law. And if he had used a knife or gun or committed aggravated assault, he probably would have been "waived into adult court" even though he was "only 13." And even if wasn't "waived into adult court," the prosecutor(s) would have argued that Vili was exceptionally mature for his age; that he was pubescent at age 10 and acted more like a 16- or 17-year-old; that he was old enough to form the mens rea to commit violent-forcible rape; that he knew what he was doing, legally and morally, when he raped Mary; and that he should be held criminally responsible for his actions and punished accordingly.

Also, when the "victim" is the aggressor, the issue of consent relates to the passive and receptive actor. Vili didn't consent to sex with Mary. Since he was the aggressor, she consented to sex with him after he forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse. And how can a teenage male be "raped" by sex that he initiated?

Lastly, since women don't have penises, they can't rape men and boys in the pure sense of that word. Diana Trilling writes: 

"This fundamental distinction between the active and passive sexual roles is an irrefutable fact in nature - the most active sexual seduction or participation on the part of the woman cannot relieve the male partner of his primary responsibility in their sexual union. To put the matter at its crudest, the male can rape the female, the female cannot rape the male." 
(Quoted in Irving Howe, The Critical Point, New York: Dell Publishing, Paperback Edition, 1973), p. 226.) 

Also, males can rape men and boys, but females can't rape women and girls.

Diana Trilling's point is that "rape" signifies not only violence, not only criminal force, but also penetration. And, with female victims, penetration involves possible impregnation.

Contrary to the law and it's "gender neutrality," androgynous fantasies notwithstanding, for an underaged teenage girl to be penetrated by an adult male is not the same thing as an underaged teenage male penetrating an adult female. And the impregnation of an underaged teenage girl by an adult male is not the same thing as an underaged teenage male impregnating an adult woman. Only the female, whatever her age, experiences the vulnerability of penetration and possible impregnation. In this sense, the experience of an adult woman who is penetrated by a teenage male under statuory age is identical to that of an underaged teenage girl who is penetrated by adult male. 

Obviously, Mary didn't penetrate and impregnate Vili; he penetrated and impregnated her. No teenage male ever got pregnant from having sex with an adult female. The most harmful effect of what was once called "statutory rape" - the impregnation of millions of underaged teenage girls by adult men since, let us say, the advent of the "sexual revolution" in the early 1960's - obviously doesn't apply to coitus between women and underaged teenage males. But, legally, the "victim" is "raped" and "assaulted" by penetrating, and possibly impregnating, the "criminal"!

In a Movieline interview, James Woods explains why even women in Hollywood are "conflicted" about sex: 

"...Just the nature of the sex act. I mean someone enters their body. For women, sex in the purest, primal form -is a vulnerable act." 
(February 2000, p. 68.) 

Profundity, realism, and appreciation of sex differences from a Hollywood liberal. For a woman, even if she's the initiator, allowing a teenage male to enter her body is a "vulnerable act." Conversely, for a teenage male, entering the body of a women is not a "vulnerable act." For him, vaginal penetration is a supremely empowering act. Vulnerability is not a matter of age but of penetration, and possible impregnation. The question of age doesn't alter the physical realities of the animal act, the sexual distinction of penetrator and penetrated, the unique female experience of parturition, and the psychological ramifications of such biological differences.

What an odd sex crime: 

How much of this applies to sex between men and underage adolescent girls?

Categorizing teenage males who have sex with adult woman as "victims" of "rape" and "child sexual abuse" - especially if they're as old as 16 or 17, are the aggressors and/or "sexually-active," etc. - is victimology at its most detestable and ridiculous. 

Contending that male youths under statutory age are "devastated" and "traumatized" for life by having consensual sex with adult females is as preposterous as arguing that they're traumatized by having consensual sex with underage girls of comparable age. How is the act any different, physically and psychologically, simply because the woman he penetrates is an adult and a little or much older? 

To argue that a teenage male only thinks he enjoys having sex with an older woman because of "male socialization" is like arguing that men only think they enjoy having sex with their wives and girlfriends because of male socialization. 

Once again, how is the act any different, profoundly and qualitiatively, simply because the woman is 5 or 10 or 20 years older? Maintaing that male teenagers under statutory age are too young and innocent to consent to or initiate sex with adult women is like arguing that teenagers under 18 are too young and innocent to form the mens rea to commit murder, aggravated assault, muggings, violent rape. And words are inadequate to describe the insanity and odiousness of equating male pubescents who have consensual sex with adult females with the victims of slavery, torture, warfare, sadistic beatings, vicious dog attacks, gruesome car accidents, internment in concentration camps.

Pity poor Dan Savage, a CSA "survivor" who was "raped" as a "child" by both a man and a woman. He describes the "traumatization," the devastation of his life, the "scars" that will last until the day he dies: 

"Why is this controversial? Speaking as a survivor of CSA at fourteen with a twenty-two-year-old woman; sex at fifteen with a thirty-year-old man - I can back the researchers up; I was not traumatized by these technically illegal sexual encounters; indeed, I initiated them and cherish their memory. It's absurd to think that what I did at fifteen would be considered "child sexual abuse," or lumped together by lazy researchers with the incestuous rape of a five-year-old girl." ("Savage Love," July 29, 1999)

But, lamentably, tens of millions of people, including judges and prosecutors, believe all or most of this grotesque nonsense. And many others, motivated by ambition or cowardice or whatever, pretend to believe it so as to be "politically correct."

The orthodox feminist-liberal position on "female statutory rape" is simply an expression of a mindless and repellent androgyny - "the awful, fanatical compulsion to perfect interchangeable sexes," to quote William F. Buckley - in interaction with the crusade against rape and child sexual abuse; the fusion of two sacred feminist/left-liberal causes: child saving (especially from sexual abuse) and sexual egalitarianism. If, rudimentary physical differences apart, men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same, then consensual sex between women and underage teenage males is exactly the same as consensual sex between men and underage teenage girls.

Thus, as a moral imperative, female "statutory rapists" must be treated the same under the law and subjected to the same condemnation as male "statutory rapists." If men (some of them, that is, a tiny fraction of those who actually commit "statutory rape") are sentenced to prison for having sex with underaged teenage girls, then women must be sentenced to prison for having sex with underaged teenage males and, ideally, the average female offender must reveive as harsh a sentence as the average or comparable male offender. Such women must be jailed and imprisoned for the same reason that women (including the mothers of infants and toddlers) must be subjected to the horror and savagery of combat: the religion of equality and fantasy of sameness.

Then we have the "masculists" (the victimologists of the "men's movement") and their pro-male "equity feminist" sympathyzers. 

Fundamentally, these ideologues espouse the same tenets and and goals and values as orthodox feminists, namely, environmental determinism and sexual egalitarianism, and support 80-90% of the "mainstream" feminist agendum. In respect to victimology, however, "masculists" turn feminist ideology on its head. 

This is what Charles Sykes means when he writes that 

"(t)he embryonic 'men's rights movement' is not the opposite of the feminist movement; it's the mirror image. The men's movement is far closer to being a clone than a challenge." 
(Charles Sykes, A Nation of Victims, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992, p. 17.) 

And Paul Gottfried when he decribes "masculists" and feminists as "victimologists wearing interchangeable masks." 

Consequently, they're obsessed with debunking the "myth" of "female moral superiority"; obsessed with turning men into angels and victims and women into devils and victimizers, obsessed with minimizing the depravity and violence of males and inflating the depravity and violence of females. And since "masculists" believe that women are as disposed to "rape" and "pedophilia" as males, they're obsessed with exposing what they perceive as the grave and hidden and pandemic evil of women's sexual criminality, especially the victimization of men and boys by female "rapists" and "child molesters."

Just as orthodox feminists depict women as an "oppressed class," so "masculists" present a "mirror image" of males. Men, far more than women, are the victims of "sexism" and discrimination. And given their fantasies of pervasive victimization, the criminal justice system is seen by "masculists" as an instrument of anti-male oppression and persecution. Police, prosecutors, and judges, male and female, are driven by "misandry" (hatred of men), double standards, and anti-male prejudice. 

Granted, there's an element of veracity in such perceptions and accusations, especially as to the motives of feminist authorities. Generally, however, nothing could be further from the truth. 

As I'll demonstrate, this paranoid indictment is based on 

For example: in the "ritual sex abuse hoax" cases of the 1980s, many feminist prosecutors, therapists, social workers, and police investigators might have been driven by hatred of men and a desire to use the law as an instrument of "misandric" revanchism - but most of their victims, the innnocent people whose lives they devastated, were women.

It's true that of millions of men who commit "statutory rape," a infinitesimal fraction are given outrageously draconian sentences of 20-30 years in prison. Given the inveterate dishonesty of activists and propagandists, the misogynist fanatics of the "men's movement" and "pro-male" feminists like Cathy Young and her ilk juxtapose and contrast these rare punishments with those of women who receive probation and short jail terms. 

The implication, of course, is that men are routinely crucified and women routinely "coddled" for committing the "same crime" under equivalent circumstances. Ironically, judges are now accused of anti-male "sexism" and "gender-bias" for giving women the same penalties they impose on men convicted of "statutory rape" and, even more ironically, for giving women harsher penalties than other judges impose on male "statutory rapists"! Obviously, the same rhetorical trick can be played by contrasting the draconian sentences of women with the indulgent sentences of males. 

Such ignorance is widespread, however, as the inverted feminism of "masculists" and their supporters permeates our culture and insidiously polllutes the air we breath. Growing numbers of people are influenced and/or intimidated by their propagandistic exaggerations, lies, distortions, half-truths, and delusions of male victimization. 

For judges and prosecutors, tactically as well as morally and ideologically, harshly punishing a female who transports a male youth to sexual nirvana demonstrates that "statutory rape" and "child sexual abuse" laws are being applied in an "equal" and "gender-neutral fashion" and defuses charges of "misandry" and "double standards" and anti-male discrimination. Consequently, many women who have sex with young men under statutory age now receive longer and more punitive sentences than virtually all men convicted of "statutory rape."

And for all the reasons above - which are purely ideological, moral, and emotional and have nothing to do with "protecting society" and underaged teenage males from any objective danger - many nonviolent, first-offending, harmless, and even innocent women convicted of "statutory rape" are now punished far more severely than millions of violent, dangerous, and recidivist male criminals sentenced over the last 30-40 years: men convicted of aggravated assault, muggings, armed robbery, gang shootings, burglary, weapons violations, violent rape, the sexual assault of young children, even murder.

"Men's rights activists" and millions of other people, male and female, were outraged by Mary Letourneau's initial sentence. 

In fact, even Mary's initial sentence of 6-months in jail was longer than those of myriads of men convicted of "statutory rape" and even child molestation - to say nothing of many other felonies.

Unlike women, men convicted of "statutory rape" never receive probation and short jail sentences? I quote Judith B. Sheindlin, "Judge Judy" of the "People's Court," 

I don't condone her behavior. But three years ago there was a Manhattan teacher who took a 15-year-old girl cross-country for two months. Did he go to jail? Absolutely not..." 
(McCall's, June 1998, p. 40.)

Remember the case of Rob Lowe. The pretty boy actor (who must have had such a hard time bedding adult women) not only had sex with a 15-year-old girl at the Democratic convention in Atlanta, but videotaped his performance. I'm sure he only received probation. He didn't serve a day in county jail.

Neither did Anthony Mason, the 6', 8", 270 lb. power forward and habitual criminal who now plays for the Milwaukee Bucks. This from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: 

"Anthony Mason of the Charlotte Hornets was arrested on assault charges early Saturday after a fight outside a bar in New York... 
Mason has run into trouble with the law in New York before. During the league's all-star weekend in February 1998, he was charged with two counts of statutory rape and was later sentenced to 200 hours of community service after a plea bargain to a lesser charge...
Mason was arrested in 1996 after fighting with New York police officers over a parking ticket, later pleading guilty to a disorderly conduct charge, and has faced several lawsuits from bar patrons who accused him of assault at Manhattan nightclubs." 
(Mason arrested once more in New York," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, February 27, 2000, p. 4C.)

Mason is nothing more than a common thug kept out of prison by the millions of dollars he makes each year for playing a little boy's game. He assaults police, he assaults people in bars and elsewhere, I'm sure he had an extensive criminal record as a juvenile and college athlete, and I'm sure he's committed dozens of crimes (assaults, theft, robbery, rape, etc.) for which he's never even been arrested. 

But despite his record and history of violence and criminality, he was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and sentenced to 200 hours of community service for having intercourse and who knows what else with two underage adolescent girls, ages 14 and 15. His offense was treated as a bit more serious than a minor traffic violation and far less serious than a repeat shoplifting conviction. He didn't even serve a day in county jail! 

But all those "equity feminists" and "masculists" and other ignoramuses who were so outraged by Mary Letourneau's initial 6-month jail sentence aren't the least bothered by Mason's misdemeanor plea bargain and sentence of 200-hours of "community service" (which I doubt he even fully served -if at all). Or wouldn't be so if they knew about it. And, unlike Mary Letourneau, I don't recall anyone branding him a "rapist" and "pedophile."

Imagine if a woman with Mason's record, his history of violence and criminality, had an orgy with two underage adolescent males, ages 14 and 15. Do you think she'd be allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor? Do you think she'd receive a sentence of 200 hours of "community service"? Almost surely, she'd be sentenced to 5-10 years in prison. And even if she had no history of violence or prior criminality other than traffic violations, she'd probably be sentenced to prison or, at the very least, incarcerated for 6-12 months in county jail. "Double standards" indeed!

So too, with Utah Jazz forward DeShawn Stevenson: 

"After being charged with statutory rape for having sex with a 14-year-old in June 2001," he "received two years of probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of having sex with a minor." 
(Stephen A. Smith, "NBA has few guidelines to deal with felonies," The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 11, 2002.) 

Apparently, he didn't even serve a day in county jail. Not surprisingly, Cathy Young didn't write any articles decrying this or the Mason case nor will anyone find the names of Stevenson and Mason on any of the hundreds of "men's movement" websites. 

But why, if they're so disturbed by sex between adults and underage adolescents? For every women who's "coddled" for satiating the lust of a virile young man under statutory age, there are dozens of cases like those of Anthony Mason, Rob Lowe, DeShawn Stevenson, the Manhattan teacher mentioned by "Judge Judy," and the late Michael Kennedy, who wasn't even arrested for having sex with his 14-year-old babysitter.

Given the trends and forces above, it's entirely possible that the average woman convicted of loving and/or pleasing a male "youth" is now punished more harshly than the average man convicted of "statutory rape." But even if women on average are punished less harshly, it's nonetheless true that men are overwhelmingly the beneficiaries of judicial clemency in "statuory rape" cases. 

And that's only half the story. 

Proportionally, few men who commit "statutory rape" are even arrested. Florence Rush notes that 

"(a)ccording to the 1975 FBI Crime Report, arrests for statutory rape, no less convictions, appear to be almost nonexistent. Statutory rape is only a portion of the total of 37,000 arrests made under the general category of 'sex offenses.' Sex offenses (which exclude forcible rape and commerical sex) are are potpouri of arrests for offenses such as statutory rape, offenses against chastity, common decency and the like. There is no breakdown in this category identifying the number of arrests for statutory rape, but considering that each year one million females under statutory age -not including the 30,000 under fourteen- become pregnant, no matter which way you slice the 37,000 arrests for 'sex offenses," those for statutory rape are so small as to represent nothing more than an 'academic theory." 
(Florence Rush, The Best Kept Secret, pp. 153-54.)

Obviously, of the "one million females under statutory age" who are impregnated each year, a large proportion are impregnated not by adult males but by underage teenagers.

Nonetheless, according to a 1996 article in Time, 

"60% of the babies born to unwed teenage mothers in the U.S. are fathered by adult males." 
(Elizabeth Gleick, "Putting the Jail in Jailbait," Time, January 29, 1996, p. 33.) 

Thus, each year, approximately half a million girls under statutory age are impregnated by adult males. And what percentage of girls who have sex with adult males are impregnated? It's impossible to know, of course, though it's reasonable to assume that only a large minority are impregnated. If so, then over a million underage girls have sex with adult males each year and are thus the "victims" of "statutory rape." 

Obviously, a large minority of adult males who have sex with girls under "statutory age" are multiple offenders with several "victims." Just as obviously, however, large numbers of adult homosexuals have sex with teenage males under "statutory age." So, at the very least, roughly a million adult males commit "statutory rape" each year, and tens of millions have committed "statutory rape" since the advent of "sexual revolution" in the 1960s.

And how many of these, in both percentage and overall numbers, were arrrested, prosecuted, and convicted? And of those who were convicted, what percentage and number received a sentence of 7½ years in prison or longer? 1 out of a 100? 

Imagine if, over the last 7 or 8 years, half of the men who committed "statutory rape" were convicted and punished as harshly as Mary Letourneau. If so, the male inmate population would be approximately 6 million rather than 2 million, and roughly 2/3 of male convicts would be imprisoned for "statutory rape"!

Nor is such leniency, such "coddling," limited to "statutory rape" - i.e., de facto consensual sex between men and underage adolescents. In Wisconsin, as I'll show in a seperate section [see button below], men are routinely afforded leniency for molesting children age 12 and younger. And so, too, in other states.

L. Nelson Alexander quotes from an expose in the Florida Times Union: 

"The article starts off with, 

'The first time Toney Davis was accused of molesting a child, prosecutors didn't file charges. Instead, they told him to seek counseling. 
The second time Toney Davis was accused of molesting a child, prosecutors didn't file charges. Instead they ordered him to continue his counseling. 
The third time Toney Davis was accused of molesting a child, prosecutors had no choice but to file charges. This time the child was dead.' 

According to the article, 123 confessed pedophiles had been diverted into the KID program (an odd name for a program that coddles pedophiles)...

According to the FTU article, unnamed administrators of the KID program don't 'even keep records on offenders who fail to attend counseling or commit new offenses while in the program.'" 
(L. Nelson Alexander, "Shorstein's Pedophile Protection Plan," NASVO/VOCAL Colorado News, May 1998, p. 2.)

"Diverted into the KID program" means that none of these "confessed pedophiles" were imprisoned or, in many cases, even jailed for 3 or 6 or 9 months. Of the 123 in just one county in Florida, I wonder how many were men? Was even one a woman?

And in Massachusetts, one 

"Scott Selinger, a man who was arrested for molesting a boy, was freed on $5,000 bail and then kidnapped six-year old Mark DeVoe in Derry, New Hampshire." And in June 1999, George Roy was "charged with sexual assault of a four-year old girl in Springfield. Roy had been given two-year suspended sentence with probation in 1991, but never registered as a sex offender, athough he had been registered to vote all the time." 

And in November 1998, Eben Hoyt was 

"arrested for dozens of child rapes while on probation, and while registered as a sex offender. Hoyt...pleaded guilty to molesting an eight-year old in 1996. He plea-bargained to avoid prison and was placed on probation." (
Paul Moreno, Massachusetts News, July 7, 2000.)

A few years ago, incidentally, Dateline featured the case of a woman teacher in Massachusetts who was given a 2-year prison sentence for allegedly engaging in a single act of consensual intercourse with a "sexually-active" 15-year-old male. The women adamantly refused to confess her "guilt" and rolled the dice with a jury trial. Since a "preponderance of evidence" suggested that she was probably guilty of this monstrous and unspeakable violation, she was convicted. When the guilty verdict was read, she sobbed and shook violently, convulsively, uncontrollably. 

However, there was a chance that she was innocent, that no sex occurred, and it's debatable if she should have been found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Interviewed by Dateline, the Judge spoke wryly of "political correctness." "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," he said in a tone of mild contempt. Astonishingly, the judge saw no "pain" in the eyes of the "rape victim." 

But the liberal feminist prosecutor, Sheila Calkins, wanted blood, she wanted to "send a message," so the woman (a wife and mother) was sentenced to 2-years in prison for a "one-night stand" that might not have even occurred. She should have confessed to molesting dozens of little children. Then she might have received a more lenient sentence.

Nationally, an exhaustive study of the last 30-40 years would uncover myiads of such cases involving male perpetrators - many as egregious as those above. Why aren't "equity feminists" and "masculists" outraged by such cases? Or are they merely ignorant of the prosecution of "statutory rape" and child molestation cases involving men?

Let's end this section with the case of the nefarious kisser from McMinnville, Oregon. 

In July of 1994, the Wall Street Journal reported that 

"the 42-year-old wife of the District Attorney was prosecuted for kissing a 15-year-old boy. The accused barely escaped a jail sentence after pleading guilty to this act, which took place in a car. (The case came to light after the young man was arrested on suspicion of burglarizing the woman's home -at which point he made the accusation.) 
According to reports, some residents are furious over a sentence that they consider too mild for the crime: 30 days of house arrest, five years' probation, sex offender counseling. The kisser will in addition be required to pay $2,500 for therapy sessions for the teenager. 
One of the school board members - irate over what he viewed as a shockingly light sentence - has said that 'if she were a man, she would have been hanging from a yardarm in the middle of town four months age.'" 
("Of Scarlet Letters and Sodom," July 18, 1994.)

For allegedly kissing a 15-year-old punk - a heinous crime she might not have even committed, given when the "victim" made his shocking accusation - this woman was punished more harshly than myriads of men convicted of "statutory rape" and even child molestation!

And what about violent crime generally: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault. 

"Through courts, cops, and corrections agencies, government combats but never comes close to conquering crime, least of all violent crime...," laments John J. DiIulio. 
"Even on its most aggressive day, the justice system works like a sorting machine, incarcerating only a small fraction even of known, adjudicated, violent criminals... 
In 1994, Americans experienced some 4.2 million murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults. That same year, states convicted about 146,000 persons for these violent crimes, but sent only about 95,000 of them to prison..." 
(John J. DiIulio, "Against Mandatory Minimums: Drug sentencing run amok," National Review, May 17, 1999, pp. 48-49.) 

And in 1992, as DiIulio pointed out in another article, 

"Americans suffered 10.8 million criminal victimization, including 4.2 million murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults." 
In that year 
"about 165,000 persons were convicted of violent crimes, and just 99,000 persons convicted of violent felonies ended up in prison." 
(John J. DiIulio, "Abolish the Death Penalty Officially," The Wall Street Journal," December 15, 1997, p. A23.)

As for all felonies, Joseph Perkins concisely summarizes Justice Department figures: 

"Of 100 felony complaints filed by private citizens, only 30 result in arrests. Of the 30 arrests, only 20 are prosecuted. Of the 20 prosecuted, only 15 suspects are convicted. Of the 15 convicted, only five are sentenced to prison time of more than one year. And of the five, not even one serves out the full length of his or her sentence." 
(Joseph Perkins, "What about the rights of crime victims?" Herald Times-Reporter, September 29, 1999, p. A4.) 

And Mary Letourneau will spend a full 8-years of her life in a cage like an animal.

And what is the fate, the average sentence, for violent felons who are actually imprisoned. Writes DiIulio: 

"Truth-in-sentencing laws pushed the average time served by released prisoners convicted of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault from 43 months in 1993 to 49 months in 1997. For all types of prisoners, the average time served increased from 22 months in 1990 to 25 months in 1996..." 
(DiIulio, "Against Mandatory Minimums," p. 49.)

Thus Mary Letourneau will serve over twice as much time in prison as the average man convicted of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault in the early 1990s, and almost twice as much time in prison as the average man convicted of such acts of violence in the middle 1990s! And, to repeat, this is when most states finally resolved to "get tough" on crime.

And murder alone? 

"It is undisputed that we extend extraordinary generosity to murderers," writes Paul G. Cassell. "According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the average sentence for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter is less than sex years." 
(The Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2000, p. A14.) 

(What he means, of course, is the average time served in prison.) 

And Joseph Perkins: 

"Indeed, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the average sentence for murder is only 15 years. The average time served for taking an innocent life is a mere 5½ years. 
(Joseph Perkins, "Do murderers get off lightly?" Herald Times-Reporter, September 15, 2000, p. A-4.) 

And Mary Letourneau was sentenced to 7½ years in prison with no chance of parole for "falling in love" with a juvenile who hounded her for sex and forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse. For being in love with Vili and wanting to marry him and raise their two daughters together, she'll serve far more time in prison than the average male convicted of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter!

And in the summer of 1998, in Minnesota, ex-teacher Julie Feil was sentenced to 7-years in prison for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old male student. Generally, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Minnesota. ("Ex-teacher sentenced for affair with student," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, August 1, 1998, p. 3A.) 

Even more tellingly, Minnesota has the second lowest incarceration rate in the United States (North Dakota is first) and, almost surely, the nation's most indulgent sentencing policies. 80% of Minnesota's convicted felons (including myriads of violent, dangerous, and recidivist criminals) aren't sentenced to prison. Some habitual criminals have over 20 felony convictions, and literally scores of probation violations, and haven't served a day in prison. 

So Julie Feil (a nonviolent first-offender who "fell in love" with an underaged teenage male) received a longer and more punitive sentence than at least 90-95% of Minnesota's convicted felons. Put inversely, only 5-10% of male criminals (including murdereres, violent rapists, armed robbers, muggers, car-jackers, burglars, predatory child molesters, brutal assailants, etc.) are punished more harshly in the "Gopher State." 

If Julie Feil serves her full sentence, she too will spend more time behind bars and razor wire that the average male convicted of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. I don't know the status of Julie Feil. But even if she was paroled after "only" 4½ years, she served more time in prison than the average male convicted of murder, robbery, rape, and aggravated assault, and probably more time in prison than the average male convicted of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter in Minnesota! 
(James Walsh and Dan Browning, "Empty Threats," Minneapolis Star Tribune, December 19, 1999, pp. A1, A22.)