Sex Offenders: Second Thoughts

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated September 4:

After I posted a couple of pieces on child molester mass hysteria, they got linked to some sex offender support groups and I got some comments. I started doing a lot more research, and I must say, I am not impressed with the sex offender support groups or their research. One of their favorite papers claims to show only 5% recidivism rate over 3 years or 10 years or 15 years or whatever, but apparently that's fraudulent.

One good study did find a 25% recidivism rate after 15 years. This is the same study that the RSO (registered sex offender) supporters quote as having a 5% relapse rate. At that's only for reoffenses.

While at Fresno State in the early 1990's, I did a ton of reading in journals. I liked the psychology journals a lot.

In one I found a study that used confidential interview procedures to determine the true rate of recidivism, because a lot of these guys reoffend and don't get caught.Anyway, these guys can admit to molesting kids online or in an interview, and there's usually nothing that can be done, since we don't know who the victim is, when the crime occurred, etc.

That study found a re-offense rate (not a re-arrest rate) for child molesters of 50% over 25 years. I think that's about right.

There's tremendous debate about what constitutes pedophilia, but this site, Wikisposure, ought to give you a pretty good idea. It's an anti-pedophile site set up the To Catch a Predator folks (Perverted Justice), and profiles lots of sex offenders, most of whom are out and out pedophiles. Looking through the profiles gives you a pretty good idea of what these guys are all about.

I'm even listed in the "articles to be done" category, which is either scary or hilarious, since I signed a petition calling for reform of these crazy laws. So anyone who wants to go there and say a bunch of evil stuff about me, just get yourself an account and log on.

According to the FBI, a large number, possibly a majority of cases, are not committed by opportunistic non-pedophilic molesters, but by males who are actually pedophilic in one way or another. To what degree, I'm not sure, but most of those profiled at ikisposure are obviously preferential molesters.

The sex offender propaganda says that 90% of molestations are just opportunistic crimes by non-pedophilic males. Apparently that's just not true.

However, all normal heterosexual adult males are maximally attracted to females aged 16, 17 and up into adulthood, so I strongly disagree with calling men who have sex with these girls pedophiles or even sex offenders. It's not called "pedophilia"; it's called "fucking a teenage girl".

All males also have very high, though not maximal attraction to girls aged 14 and 15, so that's not really abnormal or pedophilia either. Once you get into girls aged 13 and below, no adult of any age should be messing with them, period. They're just too young, and at some point, it is out and out child molesting. However, I do not think that persons under age 18 having sex with a 13 year old is abnormal.

Main thing about pedophiles, if you look at Wikisposure, is that it's obvious that the vast majority really don't have much interest in adults. A few do, but those are the minority. What turns em on is kids, and they usually have a preferential AoA, or age of attraction. It's usually phrased something like, "My AoA is 6-11."

A few of these guys are completely out and well-known in the community. Some have admitted to molesting kids and just got away with it. That's not enough to arrest or convict someone. A number of the older ones are roaming around the world. Mexico seems to be a favorite place. Boylovers do seem to dramatically outnumber the girllovers, despite the gay rights protestations.

I'm very sympathetic to teens going down for consensual sex and to young men aged 18-21 going down for sex with girls 14-17. The Romeo and Juliet cases are the most tragic of all. I'm also sympathetic to guys aged 21-29 going down sex with girls aged 15-17. The latter is surely illegal, and you're a fool if you do it, but whatever it is, it's not pedophilia.

I would prefer to see the age of consent lowered to 15 for both sexes.

For 14 year olds, sex with 14-21 year olds should be legal. Adults having sex with those 13 and under would be a crime. For 13 year olds, sex with 13-17 yr olds should be legal. These are Romeo and Juliet cases.

I'm primarily opposed to the conflation of this sort of sex with actual pedophilia and child molesting.

I also find the whole Child Molester Mass Hysteria thing very alarming. People are being accused of being child molesters merely because others regard them as odd or eccentric, for trying to make pleasant conversation with teenage girls, even when they have jobs that require them to interface with the public, or for ogling older attractive teenage girls.

These people have not been convicted or accused of any sex crimes whatsoever, and these are the most tragic cases of all. It's normal to try to talk to anyone who has a job interfacing with the public. All normal males are attracted to pretty 16-17 year old females. In this way, utterly normal behavior is insanely conflated with "child molesting" by an insane, puritanical, man-hating public.

Teens trading naked pics of themselves on videophones are going down on child porn trafficking charges. 15 year old girls take crotch shots of their pussies and send them to 18 year old males, and the guy goes down on child porn charges. How bout the girl? One thing I noticed about all this stuff above. It's always the boy who goes down, never the little teenage slut running to the cops. Some justice.

Nor do I think pics of naked 14-17 yr old girls, having sex or not, is the same thing as "child porn". I imagine your average male would like to look at something like that. But please, if any of you guys out there have any such pics on your computer, get rid of them. Society has gone insane about this stuff these days.

I still think that the residence and lifestyle restrictions for these guys is absurd. Screw a 15 year old girl and you can never be in any place where "children" are present! That means Starbucks. That means the supermarket. That means anywhere. What a bunch of police state bullshit.
GMAB.

I think Perverted Justice, which puts real adults behind fake profiles of mostly 13-15 year old girls, is silly. Most of these guys aren't "pedophiles" anyway. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin when he was in his 20's.

They arrange a meeting with the guy, the guy shows up and he gets busted, and he never even bopped any girl, and there was no girl anyway. The guy gets 3-16 years (WTH?) in prison. Entrapment anyone? Guys, don't talk sex to teenage girls on the Net. Don't go meet them for sex. There are traps everywhere.

But I'm not particularly sympathetic to guys who committed what I consider actual sex offenses. You guys messed up and a lot of you have got a problem. You need to get it under control, quit blaming the victims, and try hard to make sure you don't do that again. Yeah, it's a witch hunt, but there's also a bunch of twisted idiots out there we need to watch, and a bunch of others who fucked up bad and need to clean up or else.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

More Sex Offender Mass Hysteria

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Good article, and the comments are great too. The article and comments go beyond the sex offender bit into other ridiculous and absurd excesses of law enforcement and punishment.

Reading stuff like this, I am starting to understand why the libertarians and anarchists hate the state so much. It seems we do have an out of control Injustice System in this country. It's not just sex offenders, it's all sorts of offenders. Little did I know that a felony conviction nearly screws you for life.

Little did I know that the system is set up for the purpose of making money - that the entire law enforcement, corrections, treatment, monitoring and parole system is designed to milk money out of people who are mostly too poor to even pay for it. As if the conviction wasn't bad enough, the system extracts profit from you like a slave on a plantation.

When I lived in the mountains a couple of years ago, a friend downstairs did 6 weeks in jail. For what? For being poor. He had some old DUI and he had to pay all these $1000's in fines and I guess he was just too poor to pay them. He got pulled over and hauled into jail essentially for the crime of being poor.

There's a fellow here in the complex who has a similar mess. He was driving a car without a license. Why? He didn't have the money to pay for the license. He kept driving the car anyway, because he needed it to get to work. He got a ticket for driving without a license. Now he's apparently got a felony conviction.

Both of these guys are White. I shudder to think of what Blacks and Hispanics must go through.

We are one of the world's leaders in imprisoning people. You can say what you want about that, but that the criminal justice system has been turned into just another capitalist industry, making its money off convicts and parolees, is downright sickening.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Child Molester Mass Hysteria

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated September 2:

Due to the fallout from the Groene case (see previous posts), Steve Groene is pushing a One Strike Law in Washington State, where he now resides. I don't blame him, and a lot of crime victims lash out like this.

As you can see on the page explaining the law, the law is constructed so Joseph Duncan would never have been freed to kill Steve's ex-wife and two kids and rape his daughter. So the tragic past would never have occurred.

California's 3 Strikes Law was written by Mike Reynolds in such a way that the 2-bit thugs who killed his daughter (who merely had lengthy records for petty crime) would have been imprisoned and would have been able to kill his daughter.

In this way, surviving crime victims, or usually relatives of crime victims, are able to time travel. They can go back in time, and in their imaginations, wipe out the past.

The problem is that this is all an illusion.

Mike Reynolds' crazy 3 Strikes Law didn't bring back his daughter, and the guys who did it are going down bigtime anyway. Steve's One Strike Law won't bring back Dylan or Slade, or wipe out what was done to Shasta.

Sure, it might prevent it from happening to others, but to be completely frank, I don't think that's the purpose of these laws. The purpose of these laws is to enable their enraged and vengeful authors-relatives of victims to imaginarily go back in time and prevent the past from occurring by passing a new law in the future.

It's the stuff of science fiction. It's magical thinking, but magical thinking is not just for kids and crazies. Adults do it all the time too, especially traumatized adults. Like relatives of murder victims.

First of all, I will say that this law is not as nuts as I assumed it would be. Some of my friends know Steve, and they did not think he would write a law as stupid as California's 3 Strikes Law, especially since his own son has a record as a 2-bit petty criminal. I'm not even sure about Steve's own history, but my friends say he ran with a rough crowd.

The proposed One-Strike law says that anyone guilty of child molestation (wisely put at under 12) and anyone guilty of forcible rape through the use of violence needs to go away for life. Now, most people would sit back and cheer.

To the authors' credit, the law seems to exclude the "date rape" bullshit by requiring that the rape be forcible and violent. It also rules out the "statutory rape" bullshit by requiring ruling out sex with minors aged 12 and up.

So where does that leave us? With a bunch of pedos and rapists. So why is this not a good idea?

Because right here in Madera, we have 133 people on the sex offender list. In a city of 50,000. Fresno, a city of 440,000, probably has 1,000 people on the list. They're either all or almost all men.
Nationally, with the ever-expanding definitions of sex offenders, there are now 2 million people on sex offender lists! Surely they are almost all males.

This is starting to look less like a war on "sex offenders" and more like just a war on males.

Here in Madera, most of the guys on the list are guilty of rape, child molesting under the age of 14 or even rape of a child under the age of 14. That's probably 100 out of 133. You're going to throw all 100 of these guys away for life?

In Fresno, I bet 800 out of the 1000 are on for rape or molesting a child under the age of 14. You're going to throw 800 guys away for life?

How many of the 2 million on the sex offender lists nationwide would be covered under this One Strike Law? That's an interesting bit of research.

This law isn't going to work. Implemented nationally, it will easily result in life sentences for hundreds of thousands, and possibly over 1 million, people, almost all men. Even if it's a good idea, it's not doable.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Peeping Toms

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated September 2:

I was doing some research on paraphilias for the Joseph Duncan stories when I came across voyeurism. I don't think I've ever engaged in any voyeurism, certainly not the criminal kind. But one thing always bugged me about this law.

What exactly does it mean? It bothered me because the law seems to imply that there's something perverted about watching a woman take her clothes off, take a shower or walk around naked. That doesn't sound so perverted to me. That sounds like my idea of a good time!

In reading some stories about some voyeurs that got arrested, it turns out that almost all of these guys are engaged in obviously criminal behavior. They typically are on private property, and they are up against someone's bedroom or bathroom window, looking at a woman undress. Ok, that's clearly a violation and a crime.

Another case involved a guy who poked holes in the ceiling of a woman's bathroom so he could spy on the. Ok, that's a crime too.

A woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her own home or in windows accessible only from her own property, and in a ladies' bathroom.

But one thing has always bugged me. I've lived in plenty of apartments. Now, what if I'm sitting in my apartment on night and I look across at the apartments across the way and there's a woman in there, undressing, or walking around naked, or whatever. Ok, so do I get to look at her? Or am I a voyeur?

I don't think such a thing has ever happened to me, but I would think that would be legal. If you don't want people to look at you, draw the fucking curtains or blinds. If you're walking around in your apartment naked in front of an open window, you're an exhibitionist or a future stripper!

This article in particular bothered me. This woman thinks that all people with "paraphilias" should go on sex offender lists forever. WTH? She particularly singled out voyeurs for abuse.

Here's a couple of interesting cases. These stupid women were walking around in their apartments that had broken blinds. I don't know if they were walking around naked or what. Well, anyway, this guy was watching them walk around their apartments. They called the cops on him and said he was a peeper. He said if you don't want people watching, fix your damn blinds! The cops told the women to fix their blinds and let the guy off. Good job cops!

Here's another one. These two stupid college women, Rosanne Strott and Emily Niland were in their dorm room at Wentworth College having lesbian sex at night. With the fucking light on. With the fucking blinds up.

So, of course, some guys across the way settle in for the show. Why not? I might have settled in for the show too! Grab me a beer! Then the guys make a video out of it and put it on the damn Internet. Now, the Internet stuff may have gone too far, but these dumb bitches are just stupid. If you want to have lez sex without an audience, either turn out the lights or draw the blinds or both.

"You can't violate people's privacy like that and expect to get away with it," said one silly bitch. Jesus Christ woman! You decide to have sex with the lights on and the blinds up for the whole damn world to see and guess what? You have no privacy.

I decided to ask Sexmaniacman about this because he's an expert on all sex stuff:

Bob, this has been bugging me for a while too. I'm not sure if I've ever been a voyeur either! I've watched plenty of porn, and I've been to a ton of strip shows. Hell, I used to practically live in porno theaters and strip joints! I'm a pervert! Haha! Fuck you, puritans!

It was the summer of 1977 and I was working and living at Yosemite National Park. I was living on park food, marijuana, and young women! Good diet! Haha! Well, one day I was off work and I saw these two women sunbathing by the beach of the Merced River. I thought they had black bikinis, but then I figured out they were naked. You do the math! This was before the shaving era! Haha!

So I strolled down there, looking at them all the time. Ok, so am I a fucking voyeur? Yeah, I was looking at em. They're naked women, you think I won't look at em? I get down to the beach, and there's these two naked hippie chicks, both 19. I introduce myself, and say hello.

Now, according to the psycho feminist cunts from Hell, I'm sexually harassing these chicks! Women have a right to lay around fucking naked anytime they want, and if any man looks at em or God forbid walks up to them to chat or join them, he's harasser and a misogynist. Well, fuck me, feminists!

I take off my sandals and shirt but not my shorts. So I go into the river with my shorts on cuz I'm too shy to take them off. In the water, I take my shorts off and I'm naked. Now, according to feminazis, I'm a fucking rapist! You see, I need to ask permission to do this shit!

I look back at the women and the feminazis would predict they'd be throwing their clothes on and screaming rape and calling the cops on the sex offender! Well, instead, they're nudging each other and going, "Hey look, he's naked, whoo-hoo,yeah, check him out, he's hot!"

What do you know, feminist cunts! Amazing! Some women actually like naked men and don't scream pervert and call the cops every time they see one! What's bugging me is, what if they didn't want me to take my shorts off? Am I a rapist? A paraphiliac? A sex offender? An exhibitionist? A sexual harasser?

WTF? One part of me says screw these damn laws. Give em to the lunatic feminists, and they'll just use them as a sledgehammer to destroy innocent men.

Nothing happened afterward, no sex. I got out of the river, and we all put out clothes on and walked away. We met some hippie dude they knew from their travels around the country. I think they went off to smoke some dope. They promised to stop by my place at night, but they never did, of course.

Let me tell you another story. I was living in the Sierra Nevada in the early 1990's. I used to walk down the roads all the time and take hikes. I always had my binoculars with me and I was always looking at stuff with em.

After a while, I learned that some shitty rumor had gone around the whole neighborhood about me and about 100% of the fuckwads who lived up there believed it. They said I was peeping into people's houses with those binoculars! They said I was a voyeur! WTF! That hit me like a brick when I heard it.

Yeah, I was looking at stuff. I was looking at birds! I'm a birdwatcher! I even had a Petersen's Guide in my pocket the whole time. Did I ever look at any people? Dunno, maybe I saw some walking around. In their homes? Doubt it. Did I ever look at anyone's home with my binoculars? Doubt it, unless maybe there was a bird in the yard!

Did I ever look inside anyone's home with my binocs? Don't recall, don't think so, why the Hell would I do that? Was there a bird in the house? If no, I'm probably not gonna look. I'm one of those weirdo birdwatchers, remember? We're into birds, not humans. You can see humans anytime, but when do you ever get to see a really hot bird?

This is what I hate about these shitty laws. I bet a lot of innocent people go down on this stuff and then on sex offender database's for life. I could have easily gone down on them myself. I had a whole neighborhood full of retarded White middle-class American fuckheads ready to swear to the cops that I was peeping on them. WTF?

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.