A former Army Major from our area was sentenced to 27 years in federal prison for a horrific crime: raping a baby.

Federal authorities found 30,000 images and 100 videos of child pornography on the computer of 35 year-old Daniel Woolverton.

Daniel Woolverton was a 1997 West Point graduate, with a career as an Army trial lawyer that appeared to be on the fast track. Now, hes behind bars after raping a boy as young as three months old, an act he videotaped.

"Well, its repulsive," said an Arlington neighbor.

"Raping an infant? Oh boy. Thats terrible," said another. wusa9.com/news/


Video from wusa9.com/news/

Raping a 3 month old infant! We found this terrible, too. So terrible that we consulted a medical doctor to inquire about the consequences of forcible penetrative rape of an infant. He confirmed our suspicion: The absolute mismatch in size would cause extreme, grave, life threatening injuries in an immature infant. So, how come, there is no mention of such grave injury?

We remembered Definition of "Rape": When a "Rape" is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word "Rape": indecent touching of a minor is "rape". It is absolutely impossible for us to know what kind of activities Daniel Wolverton engaged in Our language lost its precision and its power. The new "rape" definition serves purely to mislead the public as to the nature of the crime. To incite the mob. 

Isn’t the truth enough? Most likely he did indecent touching and fumbling with an infant. Yes fumbling in places and ways he should not fumble. But it seems he did not engage in activities that would permanently hurt, mutilate and hospitalize the child.

Compare: Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years.)

Aren’t we insensitive? Defending a infant rapist? No, we don’t say what he did was right and defensible. We just say we should not mislead the public as to what he did. One thing is for sure. Thanks to the new definition of "rape", we can not know what he did.


Today, FBI executed a search warrant at Woolverton’s residence and seized a memory card that contains an image of an adult male engaging in sexually explicit conduct with an infant who appeared to be under one year of age. The infant has been identified by the FBI. A wristwatch visible on the adult male and items in the photo appear to link Woolverton as the adult in the photo. washingtondc.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/wfo101409.htm

The FBI report supports our suspicion. There probably was no true forcible, violent, penetrative rape.

So Human-Stupidity defends sexual abuse of toddlers? No! Just don’t use the word "rape" for fumbling because
the general public gets mislead, they understand something else

The abuse of our language

  • Our language loses its precision.
  • We don’t usually use one word for totally different actions.
  • In law, in science, and in newspaper reports, we strive to be clear and precise.
  • Our modern definition of "rape" is unclear and misleading. It has been changed manipulatively, away from the clear meaning it had since the ancient Roman and Greek empires.
  • In the zeal to whip up punishment frenzy among the population, whe destroy our language, our capacity to communicate clearly. Everyone imagines a screaming infant being penetrated violently, while in reality it is probably just some quiet fumbling and fiddling around with a clueless infant. The infractor is probably not a monstrous child mutilator, but just a dumb inconsiderate, thoughtless, impulsive, abusive guy. Not to be defended as correct behavior, but not as heinous. 
  • Isn’t the true crime bad enough? Sexually molesting a toddler. Do we have to exaggerate with incendiary misleading language? Is that necessary? Of course, that is not a mistake, it is intentional, it is meant to mislead manipulatively.

A child has been sexually abused, and Human-Stupidity cares about semantics? Yes.

  • If we distort our language, just to make the sexual molestation seem worse then it is, then our language is losing its power. It is getting confusing, misleading. We lose the capacity to communicate clearly. We cannot know any more what is meant by "raping a baby".
  • we agree that an infant can not consent to sexual behavior. But we contend that there still is a difference between "consenting" infant fiddling and violently abusing a screaming resisting infant. Even if, sensibly, at this age the consent is not valid, it still invalid consent is not the same as active screaming resistance.  We lost the capacity to differentiate. We know, we will be crucified for writing this. And we know that never ever a self respecting researcher could make an analysis that the amount of trauma of the former crime is much less then the second. The uproar about the Rind study made it clear that this was totally taboo. 

We are not defending what this guy did. We are not saying it is all right or he should go unpunished. We find it problematic that we have to keep repeating this, and still will be condemned and crucified as if we were condoning sexual abuse of infants.

Our main topic is: We are defending our language. We are defending our capacity to communicate clearly and truthfully.

 

Our sex-obsessed society thinks that non violent sexual fondling is worse then life long physical or brain damage

In our sex-obsessed society, creepy but non violent and non mutilating touching is considered much worse then potential life long mutilation and disability. And to make sure nobody questions this inversion of values, we have raped our language to mislead the masses into thinking that a real rape, in the classic sense of the word, has happened.

You can find nanny cam videos on youtube, where nanny shakes a baby./ Florida Babysitter Abuses 11 Month Old Baby / "SBS [Shaken Baby Syndrome] is often fatal and can cause severe brain damage, resulting in lifelong disability"

A baby also can not consent to eating unhealthy damaging food that will cause life long diabetes and his early death. Still, nobody jails irresponsible mothers for creating over-fed obese sick babies. Mothers are not even punished for drinking while pregnant and causing permanent brain damage (fetal alcohol syndrome).

Our society suffers from sex-obsession. Now if I had a kid I would rather have a guy sexually fiddle around with the baby 10 times, then some monster hitting, slapping, burning with scalding water or hot iron, or some nanny risking the health of my baby by shaking and throwing it around, or some prengnant woman causing fetal alcohol syndrome in my yet unborn child.

We lost our capacity to evaluate the amount of damage done by a crime. The hypothetical damage by a non violent sexual crime is considered worse then permanent life long brain damage or physical mutilation.

One more time, we don’t think he should not be unpunished, he should not have done what he did. But due to our language distortion, we lost the capacity to evaluate the real gravity of his crime. We think there is a major difference between sexual activity with an immature pre-pubescent child and a post-pubertal adolescent.

Woman killing a baby: 4 years. Man sexually fiddling with a baby 27 years

Do we have the right measuring stick? Are we obsessed about punishing non-violent sexual messing higher then life long brain damage? Do we have a gender bias punishing men harder? Compare:

Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years.) Man non violently sexually fiddles with infant. No bodily damage was reported. Psychological damage possible but not proven. 27 years in jail plus future additional convictions for child porn etc.

crying-baby[9]

rape-eyes-rape-eyes-pedosmiles-demotivational-poster-1226864767
Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog

Receive an email notification whenever Human-Stupidity.com has a new post.

7 Comments

  1. Concerned Man says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    You are missing the point. He was in possession of an infant, presumably not his own, and was trying to engage sexually with the infant. Infants are completely defenseless. This type of behaviour shows a grave lack of consideration for human welfare. I have been reading your blog posts and I am worried. Thinking about children in sexual ways can be very dangerous. You may harm someone some day. You may not understand the harm you could potentially cause. Please seek professional help. A medical health professional is bound by law not to talk about what you share with them.

  2. admin says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I am not saying that it is ok to fiddle with infants.

    I am saying that people still imagine the word “rape” to have a certain meaning it had for millennia. I am defending the precision of our language. I am saying that fiddling is not right, but it is not the same as forcible penetrative rape. I am wondering about why people, the law, the press have to distort our language to deceive the public into a punishment frenzy, because they think something else has happened. I am saying: “call a spade a spade”.

    Use the right vocabulary, and then decide on the proper punishment. See http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/social-rules-habits/manipulate-language

    About the medical health professional: there are exceptions where a psychologist or psychiatrist is not bound by law to silence. Child abuse is one of them. That might help to catch a child abuser, but it prevents child abusers from getting psychological help.

    But, to be clear: I agree totally with what you say. Every single word. Except the one misunderstanding: I am not saying that sexual behavior with infants is right or defensible.

    You are missing my point. Most people miss my point. I am discussing “Manipulative distortion of our language”. Call things by their real names, be precise, and then decide on the right punishment for the crime. It seems that people are afraid that “indecent behavior with an infant” will not elicit a high enough jail term, so the crime has to be “exaggerated”.

    In the case of an infant everyone would agree that he acted criminally wrong. The issue is of real importance when someone fondles his 17 year old girl friend and gets convicted as a “child rapist”. In that case of a 17 year old one could argue that he engaged in consensual adolescent fondling, which should either carry a much lighter sentence or should not be a crime at all. Whereas any type of non-consensual sex at any age is a crime.

  3. Concerned Man says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Thank you for your response. You are right about the distortion of language. You are also right about fear mongering concerning pedophiles. I just worry that people less intelligent than yourself might read what you have posted here (especially in other posts) and think that their sexual feelings towards children are okay. We would not tolerate people in our society openly talking about committing murder or assault.
    I am also from Canada where the age of consent is 16, I think this is a more logical age but not so long ago it was 14 and I think this was too young. Our criminal law is centered around intent and consent (assault is use of force without consent). I also think indecent behaviour with an innocent would illicit enough jail time, it’s a heinous crime and people know how to read between the lines here. Please note that ‘spade’ is viewed by many as a racial slur.

    I suppose my response was directed more broadly at the teenage-sexuality and child pornography sections of your site. Remember that laws on the minimum age of consent are meant to protect individuals that can’t protect themselves, sometime at the expense of others. It is unfortunate that a man of even twenty cannot fondle his 17 year old girlfriend in the states, but it’s just sex, it’s just fondling. Why can’t they wait a year?

  4. Alan Vaughn says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    “Thank you for your response. You are right about the distortion of language. You are also right about fear mongering concerning pedophiles. I just worry that people less intelligent than yourself might read what you have posted here (especially in other posts) and think that their sexual feelings towards children are okay. We would not tolerate people in our society openly talking about committing murder or assault.”

    They won’t. We do not approve of ACTUAL child-pornography that a REAL paedophile would get his rocks off viewing.
    All we say is that to most men (even you) a 17 year old girl is not a child and therefore a man who experiences aroused “sexual feelings towards” such a 17 year old is NOT a paedophile!
    However, thanks to the new-age language invented by the world’s gynocracy, a 17 year old girl now IS a ‘child’ and any man who is aroused at the sight of one IS a ‘paedophile’.
    If any man is caught in possession of a picture of such a 17 year old ‘child’ even if she is fully dressed in the picture, he faces the possibility of going to prison for up to 10 years for possessing ‘Child pornography’…
    NO: if a real, original paedophile, even one less intelligent than you were to discover this site he would not feel safe here thinking that ‘his sexual feelings towards children are okay’.
    As recent as 15 years ago, the word “child” meant to most people any person under the age of 12 years and “Paedophile” at the same time was actually a scientific word that meant an adult with a peculiar sexual preference towards PRE-PUBESCENT children.
    NOT a sexual attraction towards attractive, buxom 17 year old WOMEN that the word CAN and DOES mean today; thanks to the feminazis of the new-world gynocracy…
    And “pornography” used to mean explicit depictions of a person or persons engaged in sexual activity.
    It now means any girl or woman, (even fully clothed) who is posing or smiling in a way that might evoke sexual arousal in a man…
    It is these new-age words that have already put thousands upon thousands of men in prison and destroyed millions innocent lives!!
    Read EVERYTHING here and not just here, we have many more similar blogs that you can link to from here…
    You yourself could well be vulnerable to these ridiculous new laws, so think about that before you stare down your nose at us and make those comments that we’re not open to others people’s ideas or opinions…
    If people like you didn’t commet, we’d soon get bored with agreeing with each other.

  5. Pictures of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Long time lurker. Just wanted to let you know that your home link is broken.

    helpwithsymptoms.com/read/pictures_of_fetal_alcohol_syndrome_fas/

  6. asdfg says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    And why shouldnt be OK being a pedophile? Is another sexual orientation, what you care about what other people feel? How come you think is OK to try to manipulate and hide the sexual orientation of other people?

    Having another sexual orientation like pedophilia is not wrong. Its not wrong to be different. Society doesnt have the right to control what people think and feel and pedophiles should have the right to discuss and express their feelings in freedom.

  7. Alan Vaughn says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @asdfg
    “Having another sexual orientation like pedophilia is not wrong. Its not wrong to be different. Society doesnt have the right to control what people think and feel and pedophiles should have the right to discuss and express their feelings in freedom”.

    We (at least I) couldn’t agree more with your comment!
    The problem is (and not only for actual paedophiles as it was originally defined) that thanks to the distortion and modification of our language, thence the laws that are used to govern, ALL of us (men) are in serious trouble.
    This is all thanks to the sex-hysteria that is totally eroding our society and will eventually destroy us all…
    The sex hysteria was started by and is continuously being perpetuated by the uunattractive, middle-aged and sexually challenged leaders of the feminist movement; who are trying to ‘increase’ their sexual value by making it illegal for any man to as much as look at, no: think about doing anything intimate with a younger woman.
    With the current rate of change brought about by the world-wide gynocracy, I can see the day when having any kind of intimate relationship with any woman more than 5 years younger, will be a serious criminal offence with a mandatory prison term; fast approaching.
    Whether the man is 60 years old or 16 years old!!

    To see much more detail with very clear explanations of this disturbing trend, I recommend visting http://theantifeminist.com

Leave a Reply

 Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog (no spam, unsubscribe at any time) 

Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog
Receive an email notification whenever Human-Stupidity.com has a new post.
Email: 
 
Mailing list powered by Google Feedburner. Every email contains an unsubscribe link. You can unsubscribe at any time. Human-Stupidity hates spam as much as you do.

 Subscribe in a reader      Follow us on twitter