Establishing a Typology of Potential Child Sexual Predators Based on Whether and Why They Offend

Introduction

           I have written this article, and created the infographics below, in continuation of the research I published in my May 2021 article "Dismantling Five Myths About Child Molesters That Are Helping Them Evade Notice, Capture, and Judgment".

     That article can be read at the following link:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/05/not-all-child-molesters-are-exclusively.html

     The first infographic can be found in the original article, linked above.

     The second infographic is new.

     I have created this typology - consisting of eight categories of people, six of which are pedophiles and/or child molesters - for several reasons.

     The primary reason is to clarify the distinctions between child molesters and pedophiles, and people who fit into both categories, and people who fit into neither. Another reason is to highlight the distinction between pedophiles who love children in one or more ways, versus predators who target children mostly out of feelings of hatred.
     I believe that this is necessary, to establish an accurate nomenclature to describe predators who harm children sexually, but do not have either romantic feelings, nor feelings of sexual attraction, towards the children they victimize. The idea of calling such people "pedophiles" (which literally means "child lover") does not adequately describe them. [I have classified these people as Type 6; what I call the "Sadistic Abuser".]

     Of course, none of this is to imply, of course, that a person who molests a child because they love them, is necessarily any less dangerous than a person who molests a child because they hate them.
     The purpose of this article is to caution parents that some people might pretend to love their kids in order to get close to them and harm them sexually, while while other people might pretend to hate their kids in order to get close to them and harm them sexually.

     Love of children or hatred of children may be used, as someone's cover, for molesting children.

     I believe that it will also be helpful - to police, criminal psychologists, and psychiatrists - to have a typology of potential child sex criminals, because these professions, and parents, should should be familiar with several paradoxes related to child molesters.

     The first is that - as I explained in "Dismantling Five Myths About Child Molesters That Are Helping Them Evade Notice, Capture, and Judgment" - not all child molesters are pedophiles, and not all child molesters are pedophiles.

     The second is that some people love children so much - including inappropriately - that they cannot bring themselves to molest a child; while other people hate children, and cannot bring themselves to molest a child due to that hatred, despite having a sexual attraction to children.
     The former class of people is called "Righteous pedophiles" or non-offending pedophiles; which I have labeled as Type 1. The latter class of people may be rare, and may even not exist. But still, it's logically possible that there are child-attracted child-hating non-offenders. I have labeled that class as Type 2 (the "hateful pervert" or "repulsed non-offender").

     Another important paradox to keep in mind - which is a major reason why I developed this typology - is that some child molesters feel romantic feelings, or even (what they would describe as) feelings of love, towards their victims and potential victims.
     [Note: In the typology, I have grouped people with healthy affection towards children, together with people who develop romantic feelings towards children. I have only done this in order to distinguish those who have mostly hatred towards children, from those who have mostly love towards children. I do not mean to imply that romantic feelings towards children, and affection, are the same thing; I have only done this for the sake of simplicity. I welcome my readers' attempts to refine this typology and make it more precise.]
     Some abusers even shower their victims with gifts, to manipulate them and stop them from coming forward about the abuse. This is particularly common in familial relationships which involve C.S.A. (child sexual abuse and/or assault). To cite a real-life example, Jeffrey Epstein paid for some of his victims to have housing and to get through college. Abusers like this use the fact that they have helped their victim, to get the victim to put up with more abuse.
     It is important to remember that some offenders fall in love with their minor and child victims, because it helps us remember that someone who is especially affectionate towards children, could just as easily be a pedophile, as they could be a normal person.
     Abuse does not always look like abuse. Sometimes it looks like a loving relationship. It's important to know the warning signs of abuse, to watch for them, and to think about what you have seen.

     

One way of visualizing the information

Click, and open in new tab or window, and download,

to see in full resolution.

Two Types of People Who Don't Harm Children Sexually and Don't Want To

1. Normal person with a healthy love for children
     (shown in light green;
          loves children emotionally but not romantically, not attracted to children sexually, does not offend)

2. Non-child-attracted non-pedophile child-hater, a/k/a "normal person" who hates children but doesn't sexually harm them
     (shown in medium green;
          does not love children emotionally nor romantically, not attracted to children sexually, does not offend)

Six Types of People Who Harm Children Sexually and/or May Want To



Type 1: "NON-OFFENDING PEDOPHILE" / "'RIGHTEOUS' PEDOPHILE"
          (i.e., a non-offending child-attracted pedophile)
     [shown in orange;
          loves children emotionally and romantically. attracted to children sexually, does not offend]

     This type of person is a pedophile, but not a child molester. This is sometimes called a "Righteous pedophile" (meaning a person who is sexually attracted to children but does not offend), or a non-offending pedophile. This type of person has inappropriate sexual feelings towards children, and also has romantic feelings and emotional attachments to children.

     This type of pedophile loves children so much that it is inappropriate and sexual, but the intense emotional love of children also prevents the pedophile from offending against children in his or her lifetime. This type of pedophile often wishes that they weren't a pedophile, due to the conflicting feelings they have, being sexually attracted to children while also feeling love and compassion for them.

     To clarify: The fact that someone qualifies as a "righteous pedophile" or "non-offending pedophile", or has been identified as such, does not necessarily mean that they will never offend. Some pedophiles will try to be "righteous pedophiles" who refrain from offending, but will fail. Those Type 1 Righteous Pedophiles who give into the temptation to offend, and hurt a child, will fall into the Type 3 category, the child-molesting child-attracted pedophile.

Type 2: "HATEFUL PERVERT" or "REPULSED NON-OFFENDER"
          (i.e., a non-offending child-attracted child-hater)
     [shown in brown;
          does not love children emotionally nor romantically, attracted to children sexually, does not offend]

     This type of person hates children and feels no emotional attachment to them, and is attracted to children sexually, but does not end up offending in their lifetime. Type 2 individuals are attracted to children sexually, but not emotionally, nor do they develop romantic feelings for children. It's possible that people in this category are too repulsed by their emotional hatred of children, to harm them in a sexual way.

     This is not to say, however, that a Type 2 individual could never molest a child; Type 2 is just the class one falls under if one does not offend during one's lifetime, and is also sexually attracted to children, but not emotionally compassionate towards them. If a Type 2 "Hateful Pervert" or "Repulsed Non-Offender" commits a sex crime against a child, then that person becomes a Type 5 "Hateful Child Molester" or "Perverted Hateful Abuser".

Type 3: "CHILD-MOLESTING PEDOPHILE" / "CLASSIC PEDOPHILE" / "CHILD-LOVING ABUSER" / "CHILD-WOOING ABUSER"
          (i.e., a child-molesting child-attracted pedophile)
     [shown in light blue;
          loves children emotionally and romantically, attracted to children sexually, does offend]

     A Type 3 individual is both sexually attracted to children, and emotionally and/or romantically in love with one or more children. This type of person acts on their sexual and romantic feelings, and will often use those romantic feelings to justify the sexual urges they are feeling (i.e., romanticizing their feelings), and act on those feelings.

     This type is probably more likely than the other types to be mentally ill or retarded, especially emotionally immature, and/or sexually immature in some way, which makes it difficult for them to relate to adults socially and sexually at the level at which one would expect a fully developed adult to interact.

     A "Righteous Pedophile" or non-offending pedophile (Type 1) will become a Type 3, if that individual fails to refrain from harming a child sexually.

Type 4: "REPRESSED CHILD MOLESTER" / "TICKING TIME-BOMB ABUSER" / "UNWITTING ABUSER"
          (i.e., a non-child-attracted child-molesting pedophile)
     [shown in pink;
          loves children emotionally, not consciously attracted to children sexually, does offend]

     A Type 4 individual is not consciously attracted to children, and believes themselves to love children in a healthy way. But a Type 4 person is also an offending pedophile. A person who is abused as a child, and then forgets that abuse, and then finds oneself suddenly accused of molesting a child - and they have no idea why they did it, but are beginning to recover their own childhood memories of abuse - likely falls into the category of Type 4.
     Such a person may be said to be subconsciously sexually attracted to children, due to their prior abuse. Due to their prior abuse, they may also have subconscious resentment, and/or survivor guilt, regarding children who have not suffered any sexual abuse. This may motivate them to find a victim, as a way to transfer the trauma they suffered.

Type 5: "HATEFUL CHILD MOLESTER" / "PERVERTED HATEFUL ABUSER"
          (i.e., a child-molesting, child-attracted non-pedophile)
     [shown in medium blue;
          does not love children emotionally nor romantically, attracted to children sexually, does offend]

     This type of person hates children, and wants to harm them - sexually, and possibly also physically, and maybe other ways as well - due to that hate. Type 5 individuals do offend in their lifetimes, and violate children sexually due to both hatred and sexual attraction. Type 5 individuals do not feel any emotional attachment, nor romantic love, for children.

     If a Type 2 "Hateful Pervert" or "Repulsed Non-Offender" commits a sex crime against a child, then that person becomes a Type 5 "Hateful Child Molester" or "Perverted Hateful Abuser".

Type 6: "SADISTIC CHILD MOLESTER" / "UNATTRACTED SADISTIC ABUSER"
          (i.e., a non-child attracted child-hating child molester)
     [shown in medium red;
          does not love children emotionally nor romantically, not attracted to children sexually, does offend]

     This type of person hates children, and wants to harm them due to that hate. Type 6 individuals do not feel any emotional attachment, nor romantic love, for children. Although Type 6 individuals are not sexually attracted to children, they commit sex crimes against children for reasons of power and control - and in order to take advantage of children's vulnerability - rather than due to sexual attraction or romantic or emotional interest.
     If a person who hated children were on the track to becoming a Type 6 "Sadistic Abuser" - but somehow managed to avoid offending against any children during their lifetime - then that person would belong to the non-pedophilic type which I have shown in medium green in the infographics; that is, a so-called "normal" person who hates children (and is not sexually attracted to them).

Conclusion

     I hope that a deeper and more detailed understanding about the various and overlapping causes of pedophilic attraction, will lead to proper diagnoses regarding typology of potential child sexual predators.

     I also hope that this typology will be helpful in designing psychiatric treatment specialized towards each particular type of pedophile and potential offender. The wrong diagnosis, or the wrong cure, could make the problem worse.

     As I have explained, for some people, hating children keeps them from offending, while for others, loving children keeps them from offending. Therapies for each given condition, should reflect an awareness of these facts.

[Note:

     It may also be useful to establish a typology of potential child sexual predators, based on whether they are: 1) attracted to men, women, or both; and 2) whether they are exclusively attracted to minors, or are attracted to both minors and adults.]

Images created, article written, and blog entry published

on May 17th, 2021

Edited and Expanded on May 24th, 2021

Dismantling Five Myths About Child Molesters That Are Helping Them Evade Notice, Capture, and Judgment

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: Definitions of Paraphilias
2. Dismantling Myth #1: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Exclusively Attracted to Children
3. Dismantling Myth #2: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Exclusively Attracted to the Gender They Victimize
4. Dismantling Myth #3: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Pedophiles and Vice-Versa
5. Dismantling Myth #4: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Have Hundreds of Victims
6. Dismantling Myth #5: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Inflict Grievous Harm or Visible Injuries
7. Conclusion

 

Content

1. Introduction: Definitions of Paraphilias

      Ephebophilia is the primary sexual attraction to people aged approximately fifteen to nineteen years old.
     Hebephilia is the primary sexual attraction to children aged approximately eleven or twelve to fourteen years old.
     Pedophilia is generally defined as the primary sexual attraction to very young children, below the age of ten years old.
     Infantophilia (or nepiophilia) is the primary sexual attraction to children aged five or younger.

     These classes of paraphilic sexual attraction towards young people, are accepted among the psychiatric community, and several of these classes are listed in the D.S.M.-5 (the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders).

     If you first heard about these classes of sexual attraction outside of a criminological or psychiatric context, then you are probably familiar with the ongoing effort - by N.A.M.B.L.A., and organizations affiliated with the so-called “pedosexual” movement - to legitimize and normalize sexual relations between adults and minors, and to defend adult sexual attraction to minors, and to fight for the recognition of a freedom to act upon that attraction.
     Such organizations, and their supporters (almost all of whom are pedophiles), often cite the existence of different classes of age-based paraphilic sexual attraction, to downplay the seriousness of adult sexual attraction to minors, and to downplay the dangerous consequences of acting on that attraction.

     While it is factually accurate to point out that ephebophilia - the primary attraction to teenagers - is different from pedophilic attraction to children, that fact does not make sexual relations between adults and teenagers (i.e., rape) any safer. Also, the fact that a person is attracted to teenagers, does not necessarily mean that they are not attracted to even younger children as well.
     It is not the aim of this article, to defend sexual attraction to minors (i.e., ephebophilia, hebephilia, pedophilia, and infantophilia), nor acting upon that attraction, at any age or age range.

     I want to make it absolutely clear: All sexual relations between people over the age of 18, and people below the age of 16, should be condemned, illegal, and punished.

     In my opinion, states should come together to draft a uniform standard regarding whether the age of consent should be 17, and whether and how Romeo and Juliet laws can help solve the problem.

     I have explained my thoughts regarding legal solutions to this, at length, before; in my 2020 platform regarding child protection and sexual consent laws, which I called the Safe Kids Amendment (S.K.A.).

     I only mention the difference between the age classes of paraphilic attraction to minors, in order to explain that the differing definitions of these classes, makes it difficult to diagnose people as the exact class of pedophile that they are.

     This is important to talk about, because fussing over definitions can make it difficult to easily identify, and properly label, an adult who is suspected of being a pedophile or suspected of having molested a child.
     If the family of the victim is distracted by arguing about which term to use to describe the suspected abuser - "if" that person is indeed guilty - then the family will be unlikely to believe the person claiming abuse. Police, and the families of the people involved in the accusation, might have difficulty accepting that the accused person exactly matches the description offered by the person claiming to be their victim.

     Physical evidence is what matters most in these cases, but family members failing to notice an accused abuser's past patterns of abuse, could cause the family's secret pain to stay secret, instead of being noticed by investigators. Those family abusers who exhibit signs of narcissism or psychopathy will often inflict emotional abuse and psychological manipulation on their entire families - often more and more over the years, gradually, without them even noticing - in order to cover-up and/or distract from the physical and/or sexual abuse they committed in secret. Thus, the abuser's success in keeping the whole family in silence, confusion, and argumentation among themselves, should be recognized by investigators as something which could prevent the full disclosure of evidence related to the case.
     To put it another way, suspected child molesters often inflict emotional abuse which should be understood to function as a destruction or suppression of evidence, because of the chilling effect which that abuse creates on the family members' freedom of speech,

     Since it's possible for someone to be a pedophile but not a child molester - and since it's arguably possible for someone to be a "serial child molester" without having multiple victims - it's important to explain the differences between definitions, and to explain stereotypes that are making it difficult to identify child sex criminals.

     Throughout the remainder of this article, I will explain what I believe are the top five "harmful stereotypes" about pedophiles and child molesters. But these stereotypes do not harm child molesters; they are harming children; by helping child molesters evade notice, capture, and judgment.

     These stereotypes are as follows:

     1) some child molesters are attracted to adults in addition to children;
     2) some child molesters are bisexual;
     3) not all pedophiles become child molesters;
     4) some child molesters only have one or a few victims, rather than many; and
     5) injuries will not always be visible after a child has been molested.

2. Dismantling Myth #1: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Exclusively Attracted to Children

     As I stated above, one common definition of pedophilia is that it is the primary sexual attraction to children age ten years and below.

     We might conclude, therefore - from that, and from the fact that infantophilia pertains to attraction to children age five and below - that “pedophile” might most accurately apply to people whom are primarily attracted to children between the ages of five and ten.

     While one common definition of pedophilia is that it is the primary sexual attraction to children age ten and below, there is another definition, which some people accept, which I do not think is correct. This definition is that pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children under ten, rather than primarily.

     What is the difference, you might ask? Again, to be clear, there is certainly no difference in an ethical or moral sense, between someone who is exclusively, versus primarily, attracted to children. And certainly, some - maybe even many - pedophiles are exclusively attracted to children.

     But the difference on which I wish to focus, comes in the difference seen in the difficulty establishing an M.O. (i.e., a modus operandi; that is, a mode of operating), when we make unfounded assumptions about child molestation suspects that are based on possibly false definitions.

     If we define pedophilia to mean "a person who is exclusively attracted to children", then we risk making the mistake – whether consciously or unconsciously – to reject, with prejudice, the possibility that a person suspected of molesting a child, might have done what he or she is accused of, because they’re mostly (but not exclusively) attracted to children.
     If the "exclusively attracted" definition of pedophilia were officially or universally accepted, then it would be technically correct that a person who is secretly molesting his child while maintaining a sexual relationship with his spouse, is not a pedophile (because the fact that he's attracted to his wife, means he's not exclusively attracted to his child).
     There is a difference between a definition being technically correct or legally accurate, and the definition being helpful, or easy to understand. Ideally it should be easy enough for a child to understand it, because a child might have to make a claim that abuse occurred.
     The fact that a child's attacker is attracted to adults in addition to children, does not mean that the child suffered any less, nor that the attacker is any less dangerous. It might even mean that the person in question is more unpredictable than someone who is exclusively attracted to either children or adults.

     To illustrate the risks involved in misunderstanding, or disagreeing about, definitions, let’s take an example from pop culture. In Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, Humbert Humbert married a woman in order to have a sexual affair with her underage daughter.

     Taking an example from real life: Jeffrey Epstein maintained a sexual relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell (his girlfriend, handler, and assigned protectee) while they were sexually abusing teenage girls together and apart. Not only that, but French fashion designer Jean-Luc Brunel once wrote a note to Epstein saying that he had “a” girl for Epstein, whose age was “8 x 2”. This might refer to a sixteen-year-old, but if you’ve heard the rumors of Epstein’s interest in twelve-year-old French triplets, it’s just as likely that this might refer to two eight-year-olds.

     Moreover, plenty of men marry women, and then cheat on their wives with their wives’ daughters from previous marriages (i.e., their step-daughters). Some survivors of domestic abuse have posted on social media sites that their stepfathers had sex with them, and then their mothers blamed their own daughters for seducing the mother’s boyfriend or husband. This is often followed by the daughter telling the mother that it’s the mother’s fault for allowing it, or for choosing a boyfriend or husband who is a pedophile.

3. Dismantling Myth #2: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Exclusively Attracted to the Gender They Victimize

     If it is conceivable that a man can rape or molest his daughter or stepdaughter, without being exclusively attracted to minors, then why should it be inconceivable that a man could marry a woman, and then go on to develop a sexual attraction towards his own son or sons?

     What I am about to say is not in any way a knock against same-sex marriage, nor is intended to promote suspicion of gay couples. But it is possible for a homosexual man to disguise his attraction to men, and marry a woman.
     In American slang, the woman is known as the man’s “beard”. This is because – like a beard – she creates a false vision of manliness for her husband. Such a man could undoubtedly molest his son, using the false claim that he is straight, to provide a cover or alibi, if he is accused of that type of same-sex relation. In the case of a man using his wife to provide a cover for molesting his son, that man's wife becomes a beard for the man's pedophilia rather than his homosexuality.

     Aside from gay men who marry women to cover their homosexuality, there are also bisexual men who marry women because they’d rather marry a woman than a man. Early 20^th century American songwriter Cole Porter, and his wife Linda, are one example of a couple that fit that description. [Note: Cole Porter didn’t molest his son, because he didn’t have any children. But I don’t care to speculate on whether Porter was a pedophile, since nothing would suggest that. The point is that a man can be attracted to both males and females, and then marry a woman, get her pregnant, and have a son, and potentially molest that son.]

     Additionally, there have been incidents in which children and teenagers have been coaxed into watching pornography by adults, and then gone on to molest, rape, and/or torture other (usually smaller) children. From the fact that these children molest younger children because they saw porn that probably featured adults, we can reasonably conclude that in most cases like this, the child will grow up to be attracted to both children and adults for the rest of their life (unless they get successful therapy for the abuse they suffered).
     Bisexual pedophiles do exist. A man, or a woman, could be bisexual (that is, attracted to both men and women), have children, and molest either their son or their daughter, or both. A pedophile's sexual attraction doesn't always determine which sex they are likely to victimize, but we shouldn't underestimate the likelihood that a person's choice in a victim, reflects sexual attraction in addition to the urge to dominate someone smaller and more vulnerable (i.e., that it reflects both sexual attraction and the abuser's penchant for violence).

     I say none of the above in order to promote or excuse unfounded suspicion of child molestation on the part of anyone matching the descriptions listed above.

     I am merely illustrating several real-life and fictional examples which show that not all people who molest children are exclusively attracted to children.

4. Dismantling Myth #3: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Are Pedophiles and Vice-Versa

     I also wish to make it clear that not all pedophiles are child molesters, and not all child molesters are pedophiles.

     I say “not all pedophiles are child molesters” because some adults are primarily or exclusively attracted to children, but do not go on to offend. Some of these people call themselves “righteous pedophiles”, but I do not say this to affirm the righteousness of being a pedophile. There is none. There is righteousness, however, in not offending, needless to say.

     I say “not all child molesters are pedophiles” because it’s possible that some people who molest children, are not primarily attracted to children, or at least are not consciously attracted to children.
     For example, suppose that someone were molested as a child, and the abuse were so traumatic that they forgot the abuse, and they went on to molest a child while lacking memory of their own abuse. Such a person would probably claim, when caught, that they “don’t know what came over” them. They might even realize, after molesting the child, that they think they did it because they were abused as a child, and are now recovering memories of their childhood abuse.
     Furthermore, the word pedophile literally means "child lover". To be clear, when a child is molested, there is no difference for that child whether the person who molested them, did it because they hate children, or because they "love children too much". But the fact remains: Some people who molest children love children too much, while some people molest children because they hate children.
     There are people - like Jimmy Savile, for example - who admit to hating children, yet raped children. Of course, Savile claimed that he hated children, in order to dismiss accusations that he raped children. But when Savile says he hates children, we should believe him; that is probably the one thing he was telling the truth about. I find it hard to imagine Savile falling in love with any of the sick and dying children he raped on their deathbeds.
     I say this not to downplay the seriousness of sex crimes perpetrated by people who don't hate children. I merely wish to point out that there are people who profess to hate children, yet will be around them (in order to rape them). This is important to think about because it is easy to dismiss the possibility that a person who claims to hate children, could be abusing them when they're left alone with them nd nobody is looking.
     I also wish to point out that there are people who say they love children, and do love children, but are still risks to children (i.e., because they "love children too much"). Many of such people could probably be adequately described as mentally ill pedophiles who have not only a sexual attraction to children (or one or the other gender, or both genders, of children), but also particular romantic feelings towards one or more children in particular. Such people may use their love for children, as a cover for their pedophilia, and/or as a justification for their feelings.
     Such people may be just as much of a potential danger towards children, as someone who professes to hate children (whether that child-hater is a child sex criminal or not).
   

     To say that “not all child molesters are pedophiles” is not to reduce suspicion of anybody. Most - and probably even nearly all - child molesters, are pedophiles, in fact. To say otherwise would be ridiculous, unless it happened that most molested children were assaulted by people who had no sexual attraction to children, or very little as compared to their attraction to adults.
     The point is that you have to be watchful of both child haters and child lovers who may wish to harm your children - and you have to be aware of how they may wish to use hate or love as a cover for harming children.

     Hopefully the following three infographics, which show three different methods of visualizing this information, will help the reader understand the differences between child molesters and pedophiles.

This diagram shows that

child molesting pedophiles are both

child molesters and pedophiles;

while there also exist

child molesters whom are not pedophiles,

as well as pedophiles whom are not child molesters.

This diagram shows what happens when you combine

categories of offense with the

pedophile vs. child molester category.

Since "offending non-offending pedophiles"
and "non-offending child molesters"

do not exist, only four types of

potential child sex offenders are shown here.

This diagram shows, and compares and contrasts,

six types of potential child sex offenders,

as well as two types of people whom are

extremely unlikely to sexually harm children.

Click, open in new tab or window, and download,

to view in full resolution

5. Dismantling Myth #4: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Have Hundreds of Victims

     In fact, I have said all of the above, in order to caution my readers that anybody could be a pedophile, or a child molester, because what most people think they know about the profile of child molesters, is based on unfounded rumors.

     It is commonly thought that all or most people who perpetrate sex crimes against children, do all of the following: 1) are exclusively, rather than primarily or even just somewhat, sexually attracted to children; and 2) will definitely offend; 3) will offend repeatedly or serially; and as such, 4) have dozens and dozens of victims already.

     This may sound like a farfetched claim, but this is, unfortunately, the stereotype about child molesters and child rapists, which has been allowed to propagate through American society. This is partially owing to the widely-repeated, and unfounded, claim, that every child molester has molested hundreds of children. It is also owing to the stereotype that every child molester is a serial child molester.

     This rumor has suffered from the “telephone game”; it was actually based on a real statistic; that the average serial child molester may have as many as four hundred victims in his or her lifetime. That is very different from saying that every person who has touched a child inappropriately, has four hundred victims.

     Again, I say this not to diminish the seriousness of the crimes of child molestation and rape. I say this to make it clear that just because the average serial child rapist might have four hundred victims in his lifetime, that is no guarantee that your husband will not molest your son or daughter once or twice in his entire lifetime.

     It is important to keep in mind that it is possible for a person to be a serial child molester or rapist, while only having one victim. A person who repeatedly victimizes the same child, is a "serial" child molester or rapist, every bit as much as someone who targets multiple children.
     It is important to keep in mind because sometimes a child is molested or raped by its own parent multiple times and nobody sees it. When that happens, it will often be difficult for people to believe it. They might say, "That's ridiculous, your parent loves you, and besides, everybody knows that child molesters are (fill in the blank)."
     Fill in the blank with "all fat and lonely and don't have families", or with "all criminals who are constantly on the run", or "all have multiple victims, so it would be easy to tell, because someone would have come forward by now."

     A study called "Psychological Profile of Pedophiles and Child Molesters" by John B. Murray, explains common (but not all-pervasive) profile characteristic of pedophiles and child molesters. The abstract of that study reads as follows:
     "Pedophiles and child molesters share some characteristics. Most are male, and they can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Some prefer adult sex partners but choose children because they are available and vulnerable. The sexual abuse perpetrated may be a 1-time incident and may consist only of fondling. Penetration is unlikely with young children. Perpetrators' ages range from teens to midlife. Most victims are girls, and the perpetrator usually is a relative, friend, or neighbor. The home of the victim is often the setting for the incident. When boys are victims, sexual abuse may take place outside the home, and perpetrators may be strangers. Perpetrators of sexual abuse of children often claim they they themselves were victims of childhood sexual abuse."

     The abstract continues (I advise the reader to focus on this sentence):
     "Psychological profiles are helpful but are compromised partly because many perpetrators are prisoners and control groups are lacking for this research."
     http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223980009600863?journalCode=vjrl20
     The fact that psychological profiles of child molesters are "compromised partly" should prompt us to use logic - and ask ourselves if we can think of examples of exceptions to the rules we thought we knew - to reconsider what information needs to be added, to the accurate information regarding child sex offender profiles, to complete our knowledge about this topic.
     That is why I have written this article.
     

6. Dismantling Myth #5: The False Idea That All Child Molesters Inflict Grievous Harm or Visible Injuries

     Knowing that not every person who molests a child is a serial child rapist with hundreds of victims, we should also keep in mind that not every act of child molestation or child rape will always leave life-threatening injuries, or even visible scars.
     Oprah Winfrey has discussed, in multiple episodes of her television show, that some children who have been molested, will not even know that they have been molested. This, according to Oprah, is because the abuse was not physically painful. Some child molesters - but not rapists - abuse children by tricking them into focusing on any physical or sexual pleasure which the child might derive from the act.

     This is not to say that molestation can be good for a child; it is simply to acknowledge that some child molesters intentionally include some pleasurable touching when they molest children. They do this: 1) to confuse the child about whether they like the touching; and/or 2) because rape is (almost always) about both violence and sexual attraction.

     To say that child molesters sometimes get away with their crimes by gently restraining the child, and then molesting them without severely injuring them or raping or penetrating them. This could potentially cause the child to remember more pleasure than pain being involved in the event. And that is, of course, the outcome which the child molester would desire, because a molested child who can't remember an incident being more painful than pleasing, is unlikely to come forward to report the way they remember the event.

     Parents should keep in mind that wounds, lacerations, blood in the stool, bruises, and other forms of easily visible injuries, will not always appear on a child who has been molested.
     Blood in the stool likely indicates anal rape, as does anal fissure. Torn labia, and blood, indicates vaginal rape.
     But a boy who has been forcefully restrained, and masturbated against his will, is likely to have no more than a visible bruise or two, if even that. It is certainly possible to molest a child without leaving a mark. It is probably not possible to rape a child without causing injuries and leaving evidence, but it is certainly possible to molest a child and leave them unscathed, except for the obvious emotional and psychological trauma, and physical stress, which result from being forcibly restrained and molested.
     I would name some examples of ways to molest a child without leaving a mark, but I don't want to give anyone - child molester or not - any wrong ideas. So it's best to just end here.     

7. Conclusion

     If we go on thinking that these unfounded rumors and stereotypes about what sort of person is likely to molest our children, are true, then we risk thinking that, if our child gets molested, then it could only have been by someone who is a crazy, psychopathic, serial child rapist, who has many, many other victims already.

     No child-molesting husbands or wives are going to get caught, if we go on giving parental molesters of children a sort of “qualified immunity”; believing that the fact that the child is being taken care of, means that they couldn’t have been molested. [Note: Some courts will give parents who sexually abuse their children "slaps on the wrist", such as by making them take a class, or read a pamphlet, about how molesting children is bad.]
     And moreover, nobody will get caught, if we go on believing that children couldn’t have been molested by anyone for whom the police aren’t already searching.
     None of these stereotypes help detect child molesters, either before or after they offend. They only help people remain in denial about what's going on in their own families.

          Lastly - and this point probably deserves its own section - a child is more likely to be molested, raped, and/or kidnapped, by someone they know (like a family member, neighbor, or teacher) than someone they don't know (like a criminal from off the street).

     Learn the warning signs of child sexual abuse and neglect.
     Is the child particularly afraid of one parent, or a specific adult? Does the child seem to want to talk about nothing but their own safety, or about how they're being mistreated by someone? Does the child know too much about sex at a young age? Has the child sexually abused or tortured other children or animals? Does the child have dark circles under its eyes? Does the child seem distant, lonely, or scared most of the time? Does the child have few friends, or few close friends? Does the child seem to have a hard time trusting certain people, or people in general?
     If this describes a child you know, then that child might be suffering from neglect, abuse, or even sexual assault.
     If the child has reported an injury related to sexual abuse, document that injury, visit a doctor, and get a rape test (if necessary) as soon as possible. Document everything you can regarding the abuse, and make sure to save anything and everything (clothes, furniture, other items) that might have the abuser's DNA on them.

     Child sexual abuse and assault are sensitive subjects. For years, courts have shied away from prosecuting priests accused with such crimes, based on the notion that the trial would traumatize the victim, and make them re-live the traumatic experience (even though one cannot say that without accidentally admitting that the first traumatic experience happened to begin with).
     Many courts simply don't want to get involved in child molestation cases. It's almost as if the courts see these criminal cases as "intra-family disputes" in which the state should not interfere.
     It is difficult to find trustworthy therapists, police officers, and social workers, who are not either abusers themselves, or else have come to see child abuse as an inevitable fact of life, which pays their bills, giving them no incentive to do anything but pass victims off to other therapists, police officers, and social workers.

     Before deciding whether to come forward, learn about whether there have been more complaints, in your state, about children suffering abuse at the hands of either the police or the child protective services agency or agencies in the state.

Written and Published on May 8th, 2021

Edited and Expanded on May 12th, 16th, and 17th, 2021

Images Added on May 17th, 2021

Originally published under the title
"Not All Child Molesters Are Exclusively Attracted to Children"

Title changed to
"Dismantling Five Stereotypes About Child Molesters That Are
Helping Them Evade Notice, Capture, and Judgment"

on May 12th, 2021

Matt Gaetz's Accomplice Joel Greenberg Accused of Making Fake I.D.s to Facilitate Commercial Sex Acts

      On March 30th, 2021, the Orlando Sentinel published an article titled "Sex trafficking probe of Rep. Matt Gaetz emerges from Joel Greenberg prosecution: report". That article revealed that Joel Greenberg - described by the British newspaper the Independent as Republican Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz's "tax collector friend" - is under investigation for numerous charges.
     [Note: That article can be viewed at the link below:
     http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/matt-gaetz-joel-greenberg-allegations-b1825263.html]

     These charges include stalking a political opponent, manufacturing fake identification documents, and illegally using a state database in order to create fake IDs and sex-traffic a minor. Allegedly, Greenberg also used a state database to access personal information of minor teenage girls whom he was paying for sex (in what is being described as "sugar daddy relationships"). According to the Orlando Sentinel, the youngest of these girls were somewhere between the ages of 14 and 17.
     [Note: That article can be viewed at the link below:
     http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-ne-joel-greenberg-matt-gaetz-investigation-sex-trafficking-20210330-moyyt73tbzhrlmpjcwkqv2oeyq-story.html]

     According to a report from the Sentinel in mid-April, Greenberg had also been charged with identity theft, and embezzling public funds. [Note: That article can be viewed at the link below.
     http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/editorials/os-op-florida-failed-to-investigate-joel-greenberg-20210416-offh4qxo3fde3o2ro4eebjdoie-story.html]
     But perhaps the most serious of all allegations was the claim that Greenberg made the fake identification documents in order to "facilitate his efforts to engage in commercial sex acts". Fake IDs and "Materials necessary for making fake IDs" were reportedly found in his car and office.

     The revelation that this former Seminole County tax collector (Greenberg) could have assisted Matt Gaetz in his alleged trafficking of one or more 17-year-old girls across state lines, is certainly a disturbing and troubling possibility.
     It is even more worrisome when we remember that it is not currently illegal to traffic 17-year-olds across state lines in the United States, which means that Matt Gaetz (if not Greenberg as well) has a chance of getting off.
     As I explained in my article "Don't Shoot the Messenger: Confirming Robby Soave's Observation That it's Legal to Traffic Sixteen- and Seventeen- Year-Olds" - published April 3rd, 2021 - what Matt Gaetz is accused of doing, is not currently illegal.
     That article can be read at the link below.
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/04/dont-shoot-messenger-affirming-robby.html

     In summary:
     Although Florida's general age of consent is eighteen years old, the federal government's definition of trafficking a minor or ward for sex, effectively creates a 16-year-old age of consent.
     So despite the fact that taking a teenager across state lines in order to have sex with them, should be treated as an aggravating factor, crossing state lines changes the jurisdiction of that sexual activity from state control to federal control. This causes the federal age of consent of 16 to win-out over Florida's age of consent of 18.
     This state of affairs is the outcome of the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court case of Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions. The aftermath of this case has been that twenty states, including many of the highest-population states in the Union, have had their age of consent laws effectively nullified.

     This is a truly sorry state of affairs for anyone who doubts that sixteen- and seventeen- year-old children can "consent" to - and truly understand all of the potential negative consequences possibly involved in - having sex, traveling across state lines, and potentially even getting married and having children of their own.
     And it is a truly chaotic state of affairs, as far as concern for geographic consistency on statutory rape laws, goes.
     As usual, the only way to truly understand this problem, is to be "radical" about it; that is, to go to the root.
     We must admit that a lax attitude towards 17-year-olds having sex, and running away with other teenagers (or even with adults), is a pervasive and ongoing problem in our society. This attitude is reflected in our music and other forms of entertainment, and the issue of child runaways and homeless children affects children much younger than seventeen.
     But also, we must go to the law.     

     To understand what is going on here - i.e., why it is so easy to get away with raping and kidnapping children in this country, especially if you are a politician or otherwise politically connected person - we must examine the federal law on sex trafficking of a minor or ward.
     The full text of that law - 18 U.S. Code Section 2243 - is available at the link below.
     http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2243
     
     The federal law on sex trafficking of a minor reads as follows:

     "Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who-
     (1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and
     (2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging;
     or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both."

     To put this (somewhat) more simply:
     Whoever, under federal jurisdiction, has sexual contact with (or attempts to have sexual contact with) someone between 12 and 16, is guilty of federal statutory rape and shall be fined and/or imprisoned, provided that they are at least four years older than the "other person" (meaning the child they are raping).
     This means that it is legal to have sex with a 16-year-old - and traffic them for sex - as long as you are not older than 20 years old. If the state from which the child is taken, has an age of consent of 17 or 18 years, then the state cannot apply its age of consent to a child kidnapped from that state, because taking the child across state lines puts the case under federal jurisdiction.
     ...Where the federal government will not prosecute it because the federal government has a 16-year-old age of consent to sex law.

     To any normal person with a conscience, this should be horrifying.
     I attribute the lack of outrage at this law - and Esquivel-Quintana - to the facts that 1) most Americans are simply not aware of the sorry and chaotic state of age of consent and statutory rape laws, and 2) the fact that the federal law on trafficking a minor for sex is complex difficult to understand.

     Especially as it pertains to the status of children the ages of 12, 13, 14, and 15 years old.

     As I explained in a previous article on this topic - titled "Before Fully Legalizing Sex Work, Stop Lowering the Age of Consent" - if you keep reading the federal law on sex trafficking of a minor for sex, you will find a list of acceptable defenses for breaking the law (i.e., for raping a child).
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/03/before-fully-legalizing-sex-work-stop.html

     Section a of that law reads as follows:

     "(c) Defenses. -
     (1) In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of this evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the other person had attained the age of 16 years.
     (2) In a prosecution under this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the persons engaging in the sexual act were at that time married to each other."

     Simply put, the acceptable defenses for raping a child between 12 and 15 years old are: 1) The defendant reasonably thought the child was at least 16; and 2) The people involved were married at the time.
     In case you're wondering, there are fifteen states in which someone who has not yet attained the age of 16 years, can get married. I previously reported that fact in my September 2020 post and infographic titled "Child Marriage is Legal in Ten States, Due to Their Failure to Set Minimum Age of Consent Requirements", which can be viewed at the link below.
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/09/child-marriage-is-legal-in-ten-states.html
     Those fifteen states certainly need sixteen- or seventeen- year minimums on age of consent to marriage. Especially the ten of them which have declined to set any minimum, effectively making it legal in some states to marry infants as long as its parents and/or a judge are crazy enough to let you.
     But setting aside laws regarding age of consent to marriage, the issue we came here to talk about is the first acceptable defense for raping a child between 12 and 15 years old; i.e., reasonably thinking or believing that the child was at least sixteen years old.

     So here we have it: If a person charged with raping a child who's at least 12 but is not yet 16, establishes, "by a preponderance of this evidence" that they "reasonably believed that the other person had attained the age of 16 years", they can be let off. In fact, they have effectively not committed a crime, in the eyes of the law.
     This is unacceptable, and must change.
     But first, we must understand how this law - which includes a list of two acceptable defenses for breaking it - has enabled people like Matt Gaetz and Joel Greenberg to do what they're accused of doing.

     If you were charged with raping a minor, what do you think would suffice as convincing evidence that you "reasonably" believed, or thought, that your victim was actually at least 16 years old?
     Proof that the victim has an identification document that misrepresents their age - and/or proof that you saw such an I.D. - wouldn't be a bad guess.
     Given that 1) both Matt Gaetz and Joel Greenberg are suspected of having sexual relationships with (i.e., raping) minor girls; 2) Joel Greenberg has been alleged to have made fake identification documents in order to "facilitate his efforts to engage in commercial sex acts"; and 3) both Gaetz and Greenberg are politically well-connected and have access to legal databases, it seems clear what is going on here.
     The possibility that Greenberg used his access to I.D.-making equipment - while Gaetz contributed his legal knowledge regarding how to get away with raping minors under federal jurisdiction - doesn't seem so farfetched.
     It's possible that Gaetz and Greenberg were fully aware of the acceptable defenses for raping a minor, and provided some of those minors with I.D.s falsifying their ages, in order to ensure that at least some of what they did was legal (i.e., trafficking, and what would have been considered statutory rape if it were prosecutable in state courts).

     Despite the lack of concern from America's naive liberal mothers, there is nothing "cute" or "precocious" about children drinking alcohol; nor about getting fake I.D.s (the real object of which is usually obtaining alcohol).
     A child who is given alcohol at a young age, will develop an addiction, and at a time when their brains are fully forming, and moreover alcohol is a neurotoxic sedative. And, of course, a child who becomes dependent on alcohol to socialize or have a good time, will often resort to obtaining a fake I.D. in order to obtain access to alcohol, and possibly even clubs or adults-only shows.
     The revelations about the allegations regarding Congressman Matt Gaetz and Joel Greenberg should give every parent in the country cause to inform themselves, their spouses, their school officials and local politicians, and their children, about the dangers of getting fake I.D.s.

     Despite how the majority of the urbanites in places like New York and New Jersey evidently feel about this issue, juniors and seniors in high school should not be traveling across state lines for the purposes of drinking, driving, sex, and clubbing. Nor should they get tattoos, nor intimate piercings - nor fake I.D.s - which make them easy to mistake for adults (and thus more susceptible to being hit on, and possibly abducted).
     The amount of danger in which teenagers are being put - solely in the name of "sticking it" to prudish conservatives who don't want their children to have "freedom" (i.e., the freedom to be trafficked across state lines for sex) - is as unconscionable for me to ponder, as it is irrational, nihilistic, reactionary, and denialist for liberal parents to actually believe.

     This passive form of parenting must be called out for what it is: reckless endangerment of minors, which is probably illegal. Additionally, it is enabling of children's self-destruction and their own reckless behavior. Enabling a person who is self-destructive can only lead to their doom. To paraphrase a homeless man whom I once heard shouting in Portland, Oregon: That is not raising a child, it is razing a child.

     American parents must wake up to the insane level of legal and moral abandonment which they are committing against their children.
     That is why we must take the first steps towards putting the brakes on the seemingly endless cycle of abuses by one generation against the next, which thus far, regrettably, has been the gist of history.
     These steps must include: 1) creating a federal law on sex trafficking minors which will effectively reverse the decision in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions; and 2) treating kids like kids, who deserve protection, instead of club-hopping adults, who deserve freedom. Children's freedom does not lie in the right to travel without restriction; that is the province of adults only. Children's freedom lies in their protection.
     Please make your children aware of the immense dangers, and potential negative consequences, which could result from obtaining a fake I.D. and showing it to adults.

Written and Published on April 21st, 2021

Government-Involved Child Sexual Abuse Scandals: Which Ones Are the Easiest to Prove?

      The infographic below was created in order to display the information I collected in my February 2021 article "Twenty-Three Real Child Sex Abuse and Trafficking Scandals That Indisputably Point to Government Complicity".

     That article can be read at the link below.

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/02/twenty-real-child-sex-abuse-and.html

     Since many of the scandals mentioned in that article involved multiple people, the set of scandals referenced in the infographic has been expanded from twenty-three to thirty-eight.

     I have constructed a five-tier system, to sort the clearest examples of complicity in child trafficking and child sexual abuse (or leniency on child traffickers) by agencies or officials of government.

Click, and open in new tab or window,

and/or download, in order to see in full resolution

Created and Published on February 22nd, 2021

Expanded on April 23rd, 2021

What is the Evidence Supporting the Claims that Donald Trump and Joe Biden Are Child Molesters?

Table of Contents

PART I: Maria Farmer

PART II: Victim #1: The Evidence That Donald Trump Raped Katie Johnson

PART III: Victim #2: The Evidence That Joe Biden Molested Caroline Bennet
PART IV: Victim #3: The Evidence That Joe Biden Molested Maria Piacesi

PART V: Conclusions / Author's Note

Content

PART I: Maria Farmer

Maria K. Farmer,

artist,

and accuser of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein

     The Aquarian Agrarian reported earlier - here and in a previous article - that Maria K. Farmer was underage when Donald Trump raped her (or so she claims). That is not correct. The Aquarian Agrarian regrets that error.

     It's possible that the confusion resulted from the fact that a "Maria Doe" was named as a 12-year-old victim in the court filing made by Jane Doe / Katie Johnson (assuming that court filing is real).

     Read more about that here:
     http://i.redd.it/c369el67k6251.jpg

    Maria Farmer was born in 1969 or 1970, but she did not make any statements to police about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell until 1996. Thus, Farmer would have been no younger than 26 or 27 years old when she went public with her accusations.

     However, Farmer told Whitney Webb that she testified on behalf of Virginia Giuffre, and also said that Giuffre and other girls who were raped in Florida, were "in diapers", and "just a few years old" at the time when Farmer first met Maxwell and Epstein.
     Virginia Giuffre was born in 1983, so she would have been "just a few years old" between 1985 and 1987. During that time, Maria Farmer was between the ages of 15 and 18. That means that Farmer may have been as young as 15 or 16 when Farmer met Epstein and Maxwell.
     It's also possible, though, that Maria Farmer was merely exaggerating, when expressing the ages of Giuffre and the other girls victimized by Epstein and Maxwell. Farmer may have described a young teenage Giuffre as "just a baby" out of sympathy, or to express the seriousness of the situation, or she may have been speaking about Giuffre's age in comparison to her own age.
     Farmer alleges that Ghislaine Maxwell would ride around in a limousine with herself and Ivana Trump (Donald Trump's ex-wife) to scout for young girls, aged 12 to 14, to become Victoria's Secret models.
     Farmer did not specify whether she met Trump, nor which year she first met Ivana Trump.

     Readers wishing to learn more about Maria Farmer's accusations should visit the following links:

Phone interview with Whitney Webb
Pt. 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtD02MeZU4o
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpEJCKvjtyk
Pt. 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B327KyjpwEY

Video interviews with Maria Farmer about perpetrators other than Trump:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y86W63pc-Eo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1QNMvzsrFY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q2Aks6esJ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RezNmI1KZ54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu07ZbZEtfk

Wikipedia article on Maria Farmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Farmer

Follow Annie Farmer on Twitter
http://twitter.com/anniefarmer?lang=en
http://twitter.com/ArtisticBlower

PART II: Victim #1: The Evidence That Donald Trump Raped Katie Johnson:

     In mid-2016, a woman going by the name of "Katie Johnson" for court purposes - formerly known as "Jane Doe" - dropped her lawsuit against Donald Trump for raping her at the age of 13. Johnson says this rape occurred at a party in 1994.

      Katie Johnson says that Trump raped her, and that after that, Jeffrey Epstein made a rude attempt to comfort her. Based on what can be gathered from Farmer's statements, Epstein told her something like "You should be grateful that it was someone as rich and famous as Donald Trump who popped your cherry, instead of some pimple-faced teenage boy."

Video interview with Katie Johnson:

http://twitter.com/iansmadrig/status/1148399719334449152



More links, including court filings, and articles:

http://www.law360.com/cases/57212f4767e1a618b3000001

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content/wait-katie-johnson-actually-exists/29023196/

http://www.masstortnexus.com/News/5386/Did-Trump-and-Epstein-Rape-Two-Underage-Girls

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-teen-rape-allegation-national-enquirer-ronan-farrow-jane-doe-1465652

http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/landing-page/all-the-presidents-women/

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-230770

http://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

The girl in Trump's lap is his daughter Ivanka
(Trump's daughter with now ex-wife Ivana).

Trump has made numerous comments, and what were

supposedly jokes, about his daughter's appearance,

and about wanting to date her.

Click, open in new tab or window, and download,

to enlarge and read in full resolution.

The website "Justice for Katie" has been

shut down and replaced with another blog

since the image directly above was published.

    

PART III: Victim #2: The Evidence That Joe Biden Molested Caroline Bennet:

     Joe Biden appeared to graze and/or flick a little girl's nipple with his thumb, during the Senate swearing-in ceremony in early January 2011. That little girl was Caroline Bennet, the daughter of Democratic Colorado Senator Michael Bennet (who ran for president in 2020).

     Caroline Bennet appears to have been somewhere between nine and twelve years old when Biden touched her. The girl had no visible reaction to this touching, so it's possible that she wasn't inappropriately touched. But Biden certainly came close to touching her inappropriately.
     Based on what Biden did to Maria Piacesi (the next victim listed in this article), it seems as though Biden touches girls on or near their chests, in order to accustom them to being touched, so that nobody easily notices when he intentionally touches one (or two) of them directly on the nipple.

     The following two links lead to videos comprised of unedited footage taken directly from C-SPAN's and C-SPAN-2's websites. No changes have been made to the footage, except for the clipping, omission, and repetition which were necessary to remove unneeded footage and focus on Biden's grabbing and pinching.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dizji3k4e5w
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nloOU9J8PQ

     [Note: The caption in the video linked directly above, is incorrect; this incident occurred in 2011; not in 2015, not on the same day as the incident involving Maria Piacesi.]

PART IV: Victim #3: The Evidence That Joe Biden Molested Maria Piacesi

     On January 3rd, 2015 - during another Senate swearing-in ceremony - Joe Biden was broadcast live on C-SPAN pinching the right nipple of Maria Piacesi, the niece of Republican Montana Senator Steve Daines.

     Piacesi's mother Christine is Steve Daines's sister. Maria Piacesi appeared to be somewhere between 7 and 10 years old; I estimate her to have been about 8 years old at the time. This means that she was probably born around 2006.

     After placing his hand on the girl's side, and discreetly moving his hand upwards, towards her chest, Biden pinched the girl's nipple. The girl can be seen reacting, stepping to her left in a vain attempt to get farther away from Biden, and looking around to see if anyone noticed the pinching. While pinching the girl, Biden joked to her family that the girl should go on "No serious dates until you're thirty" [years old]. Biden pinched the girl's nipple while saying the word "dates".

     Based on the expression on the face of the girl's mother (the woman in the blue dress), she may have noticed that Biden was touching her, or at least that he was getting a little too close for the girl's comfort.

     The following links lead to videos comprised of unedited footage taken directly from C-SPAN's and C-SPAN-2's websites. No changes have been made to the footage, except for the clipping, omission, and repetition which were necessary to remove unneeded footage and focus on Biden's grabbing and pinching.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G6rtPFIXEw
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjwELMg3Wj8
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nloOU9J8PQ
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CsBs1vAk44
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GCTsHCDBkI
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6zXhYsIWKQ
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIzBuwwqWBw
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dizji3k4e5w

PART V: Conclusions / Author's Note

     I have observed Joe Biden placing his hands on girls' shoulders, and at the top of their arms, while they are standing directly in front of him, and close by.

     I personally suspect that Joe Biden may be using these Senate swearing-in ceremonies - and these times when young girls are posing directly in front of him - to gently and surreptitiously pull them back towards him.

     If he has ever done this, then we should be concerned that he may be pressing his erection against their backs.

     I have no direct evidence that this is what is happening, aside from observing girls in extremely close proximity to Biden in videos such as those linked above. But I believe that if such a thing happened, the girl involved would be more likely to freeze - so as not to interrupt the serious event - than she would be to tell somebody about it, and report the behavior immediately.

     I believe this because I have observed that children these days - especially the children of people in the legal and political professions - tend to be subject to higher levels of discipline than children whose parents work in other professions.

     The video footage of the swearing-in ceremonies from during Biden's tenure as vice president, certainly needs to be analyzed further.

Compiled and published on February 10th, 2021

Edited on February 10th and 11th, 2021