“The Hunt”: false accusation of child sexual abuse. A movie review


Lucas is a nursery school teacher in a small Danish town who is wrongly accused of sexually abusing a child. The film documents how he is ostracized by the community as a result.  Wikipedia

Great. False accusations, sex hysteria, in a (almost) mainstream movie that wins prizes in the Cannes film festival.

[In]The Hunt, the charge of pedophilia again plays an explosive role, only this time the allegation is based on an impulsive lie, making it even more bitter when the fallout spirals violently out of control. It’s difficult to watch but riveting. The Hunt: Cannes Review | Hollywood Reporter

Don’t miss the movie “The Hunt”, a compelling prize winning movie about the sexual abuse hysteria of the 1980’s.

Trailer: The Hunt

The Hunt Trailer

The Hunt: a summary.

Child sex trauma myth, and lack of due process, the root causes of all evil here

Klara (Annika Wedderkopp), the young daughter of Lucas’ closest friend Theo (Thomas Bo Larsen), develops an innocent crush on him. But when her displays of affection overstep normal boundaries, Lucas gently draws a line, which she misinterprets as a hurtful rebuff.

See. A scared Kindergarten teacher has to DRAW a LINE against a display of affection by a 5 year old. Why? Why can’t he allow a child’s affection? Because of the child sex trauma myth and subsequent legal and societal sanctions.

Her imagination sparked by a pornographic image glimpsed on her brother’s iPad, Klara responds to the concerned questions of kindergarten supervisor Grethe (Susse Wold) by saying that Lucas exposed himself to her.

Society’s sex hysteria traumatized and angered the child. Now sex hysteria will traumatize her further. And ruin the life of an innocent man, accused of a hyped-up crime that he did not commit and that is not as damaging as society claims it is (Rind Study, Disclaimer)

The film stirs indignation via the blind ineptitude with which Grethe addresses the allegation, involving a seemingly under-qualified external child psychologist, colleagues, parents, and eventually, police. But what’s even more upsetting is Lucas’ helplessness to correct the misinformation, given that Grethe refuses to tell him the source or even the exact nature of the charge. Parents advised to look for signs of trauma in their children suddenly begin seeing them everywhere. The Hunt: Cannes Review | Hollywood Reporter

See Elisabeth Loftus’s “Creating false memories” 2  Note also that unsubstantiated allegations are enough to ruin a man’s life. There is no due process for men in child sex abuse case, nor in rape accusations. See the false rape society.


Virtually overnight, Lucas finds himself ostracized by the community, shunned by all but one loyal friend (Lars Ranthe), physically assaulted and subjected to a particularly vicious reprisal that causes both him and Marcus considerable grief.

We wrote about vigilante justice in Dangerous pedophile hunters threaten harmless pedophile (Jack McClellan)

While witch-hunt stories like this one peaked in the news some 20 years ago and have been dramatized on TV and film before, The Hunt is still shocking. That’s thanks to the skill with which Vinterberg, Lindholm and editors Anne Osterud and Janus Billeskov Jansen modulate the crescendo of paranoia, judgement and injustice.

Adding to the sorrow at the drama’s heart is Klara’s confusion. Even when she volunteers that it was a silly thing she made up, her mother (Anne Louise Hassing) muddies her grasp of the situation with leading talk about the repression of unpleasant memories.

Adult hysteria is the main problem.

Let me stress, this is a very benign case because there is no intelligent adult maliciously and actively promoting false accusations, like in divorce proceedings.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ““The Hunt”: false accusation of child sexual abuse. A movie review” »
“The Hunt”: false accusation of child sexual abuse. A …
» continues here »

Child Sex Trauma Theory Traumatizes Children (#6)


Child Sex Trauma myth, a self fulfilling prophecy.
The faulty child sex trauma theory is the cause of child sex trauma.

Children generally do not get traumatized by *consensual adult/child sexual experiences. Rather the trauma is caused  by the reaction of parents, peers, teachers,  police, and, yes, therapists. Therapy is often traumatizing.

This conclusion is so drastic and shocking that even we, at Human-Stupidity.com only recently understood the profound implications. The hysterical falsification of science doesn’t just put men in prison with draconian punishments, it actually causes damage to children it purports to protect (compare also Milton Diamond) .

Prohibition of adult/child sexual contact must be justified on ethical, not on scientific grounds. In other words, don’t use false science to justify your moral rules. Disclaimer

Finkelhor (1979) proposed an ethical justification for prohibiting adult/child (defined as a prepubertal youngster) sexual behavior. The reason for using an ethical justification was that the justification based on psychological harm lacked cogency. According to Finkelhor, it was empirically weak since "it is possible that a majority of these children are not harmed" (p.693

Forcible, non-*consensual CSA (Child Sex Abuse), of course, is very different.

From the child’s point of view and from the commonsense point of view, there is an enormous difference between intercourse with a willing little girl and the forcible penetration of the small vagina of a terrified child. One woman I know enjoyed sex with her uncle all through her childhood, and never realized that anything was unusual until she went away to school. What disturbed her then was not what her uncle had done but the attitude of her teachers and the school psychiatrist. They assumed that she must have been traumatized and disgusted and therefore in need of very special help. In order to capitulate to their expectation, she began to fake symptoms she did not feel, until at length she began to feel truly guilty for not having felt guilty. She ended up judging herself quite harshly for this innate lechery (cited in Schultz, 1980, p. 39).   Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman: Politically Incorrect – Scientifically Correct

In addition to such anecdotal evidence, research with large samples clearly showed that many children did not get harmed by such adult/child sexuality. Disclaimer

But sex, in general, is not like being mauled by a dog or torture, which are always painful and traumatic. Sex is often just the opposite–the most pleasurable experience one can have. It therefore cannot be assumed a priori that a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old, for example, will react with trauma rather than pleasure just because his or her partner is older. In fact, teens of this age often do not react as the orthodoxy insists they must, as the following example illustrates. It was related by Dan Savage, in relation to the attacks on our study, in his nationally syndicated column “Savage Love” (July 29, 1999):

Why is this controversial? Speaking as a survivor of CSA at fourteen with a twenty-two-year-old woman; sex at fifteen with a thirty-year-old man–I can back the researchers up; I was not traumatized by these technically illegal sexual encounters; indeed, I initiated them and cherish their memory. It’s absurd to think that what I did at fifteen would be considered “child sexual abuse,” or lumped together by lazy researchers with the incestuous rape of a five-year-old girl.
The Condemned Meta-Analysis on Child Sexual Abuse

(The Child Sex Trauma Myth #6)

This is the 6TH in a series of articles about the Child Sex Trauma Myth
(#1 disclaimer, #2, #3, #4, #5)

Unlike Susan Clancy, who stumbled upon the truth and partially retracted:

  • Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman are the intellectual academic elite,
  • worthy of being published in the top journals of the American Psychological Association and
  • worthy of being unanimously condemned by US congress and senate

Such research and its unpopular results are absolutely taboo and verboten

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Child Sex Trauma Theory Traumatizes Children (#6)” »
Child Sex Trauma Theory Traumatizes Children (#6)
» continues here »

The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles

We are not pedophiles. We have no interest in children or their indecent depictions.

We make extreme efforts to not run afoul of any law, not even by mistake or accident 1 2 3 .

We are interested in truth, free academic research, in protection and happiness for children 5.
We are against unnecessary witch hunts that demonize and imprison people with unnecessary rigor and that criminalize a huge percentage of the (male) population.

The biggest of all taboos: to research, study or discuss adult-child sexuality.

We have been warned. We will be called pedophiles. We may suffer vigilante action. We may suffer government prosecution. We should not mess with the topic adult-child sex.

Yes we are talking about real children under 12 years of age, not just 17 year old adolescent young adults, re-defined as "children" by feminist dogma and by the *United Nations.

The Rind Study serves as a warning: a prestigious, peer reviewed meta analysis, published in one of the most prestigious journals of the American Psychological Association: probably the only piece of peer reviewed academic research condemned by unanimous vote by both the United States Senate and Congress.

The authors’ stated goal was “…to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?” Some of the authors’ more controversial conclusions were that child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child;[3] that the reason the current view of child sexual abuse was not substantiated by their empirical scrutiny was because the construct of CSA was questionably valid; and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on whether the encounter was consensual or not.  Wikipedia on Bruce Rind 

The US Senate and Congress have decided, once and for all, by dogmatic fiat: "child sexual abuse" is is extremely traumatic under all circumstances.  Academic research must not arrive at any different conclusions.

Such a shocking interference of religious and moral zealots with scientific truth has not happened since Galileo Galilei: a few centuries ago, the catholic church decreed the "scientific truth" that the sun revolves around the earth.

The Trauma Myth

Susan Clancy inadvertently stumbled over the unpopular truth, as published in

The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children–and Its Aftermath .

All hell broke loose. I was bombarded with accusations that I was hurting victims even more than they already had been and that I was a friend of pedophiles. I was also vilified by many in my own scientific community. Some colleagues and graduate students stopped talking to me. A well-meaning professor told me to pick another research topic because I was going to rule myself out of a job in academia. Some felt my research had a political agenda, one biased against victims. I was invited to give a talk about my research at Cambridge Hospital—home of the tremendously influential sexual abuse treatment program Victims of Violence. No one from the program showed up. Clancy (pp. 77-78).

Researchers refuse to discuss issues in a seminar?! The most convinced adversaries never counter with true research, with true arguments?

This is the sad state of affairs. A dogma does not need to be discussed scientifically. The Bible has the definite answer. The US senate made the scientific decision.

And Human-Stupidity has the insanity to question and analyze the dogma.


Human-Stupidity is open to science. Just prove me wrong, using science.

  1. TruthWillSetYouFreeIf unbiased free academic research can show that 17 year olds get traumatized for life for having sex with older people, we will support age-of-consent laws.
  2. If the Rind study, and Susan Clancy can be proven wrong, by free unbiased academic research, we will support draconian decade-long punishments for all childhood sexuality. 
  3. We would stand corrected if the voodoo theory could be proven true, by free unbiased academic research: if it were proven that looking at photos of lightly clothed 15 year olds, downloaded for free from the internet does irreparable harm to the minors depicted. If that harm is so perverse that looking at the photos ruins the model’s life forever. And that downloading free photos truly stimulates the rape and abuse of innumerous children. Then we might agree that life in prison without parole is a proper punishment for possession of a few hundred photos, which are nothing else then 0’s and 1’s in files on a computer hard drive.

But against all odds, Milton Diamond, in peer reviewed research, proved the opposite: freely available child pornography reduces sex crimes against children, because many pedophiles can satisfy themselves merely by perusing pictures.


Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles” »
The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you def…
» continues here »

Sucking infant’s penis is legal in the US! If you first cut off his foreskin without anesthesia!

circumscisionSucking an infant’s bleeding penis, after first cutting off his foreskin without anesthesia. Torture abuse of a sexual organ. An old man performing a satanic torture sexual abuse rite.  Not traumatic for the baby?? Not a crime!

A satanic torture sexual abuse rite?tools-circumscision

  1. circumscision-cartoonAn infant gets viciously tortured  by removing a part of his sexual organ. No medical necessity. Worse, no anesthesia! How cruel!
  2. An old man puts the infant boy’s injured penis into his mouth to suck the penis, to suck out blood
  • By conventional wisdom, sucking the penis of an infant is a heinous crime that will scar and traumatize the infant for life 1 2. Even if it is done tenderly and painlessly. By today’s laws, anyone who sucks an infant’s penis (or vagina), even if it were the father or the mother, would be punished as harsh as a murderer and labeled an "infant rapist".
  • I don’t see concerns about the trauma to a defenseless baby who gets physically hurt and injured in cruel ways, without anesthesia.  And then painfully gets the penis sucked.  See Circumcision study halted due to trauma


Religious rules, 3000 years behind modernity

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Sucking infant’s penis is legal in the US! If you first cut off his foreskin without anesthesia!” »
Sucking infant’s penis is legal in the US! If you first cut …
» continues here »

Forced marriages: death threats victimize thousands of Muslim girls – German Government Study

439-forced-marriage-poster1Thousands of women, mostly underage, are forced into marriage in Germany every year. The German family minister Kristina Schröder (CDU) and the Integration official Maria Böhmer (CDU) announced they will present a study today, Nov. 9th.

The numbers derive from counting women that actively sought help at government counseling centers. We expect that there would not be many false complaints, but a large percentage of unreported cases.

In the year 2008, 3443 women sought help at counseling centers, because they were under the threat of forced marriage or actually forced to marry.

The casualty figures are much higher than previous estimates: The NGO Terre des Femmes was previously assumed, turn that in Germany every year more than a thousand women and girls from immigrant families go to counseling because of forced marriages.

For the new comprehensive study 1445 counseling centers were contacted. 830 of them reported back. The results also shed light on origin, age and history of the victims. Thus, every third person concerned in connection with the forced marriage is threatened with death. The vast majority of victims of forced marriages are from Muslim parents’ homes – 83.4 percent. According to the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" nearly two-thirds of the recorded cases are from families characterized as very religious.

Many have experienced extreme brutalityislam-vs-women_64

Almost all concerned come from immigrant families, but a third of girls and women who were forced into a marriage were born in Germany [probably to immigrant families (human-stupidity]) according to the survey. 23 percent were born in Turkey.  Turkey was the most frequent country of origin, followed by Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Iraq.
Thousands of migrants are forced into marriage every year (Google translation)

  • forced marriageWe recognize that this is a very serious issue of civil liberty that warrants attention.
    • Young women and girls being forced by their own family and their entire support network is an extreme threat. Please read the quotations and original articles below and on the picture links.
    • Human-Stupidity’s subsequent focus on unpopular and ignored side issues does not mean that we don’t recognize the seriousness of violently forced marriages.
  • we suspect for every reported case, there probably are huge numbers of cases where marriages happen just by mild parental pressure and nobody ever complaints.
    • Of course, this is very problematic, we do not support such action.
    • But in our traditional position as Devil’s advocate who wants to instigate out-of-the-box thinking, we could question if such marriages could not  be happy. Maybe parents’ mate choices are more mature then 17 year old girls’ choices?
    • Of course, we absolutely do not support death threats and severe physical violence. And we are aware that knowledge of this violence might scare many girls into voluntary compliance.
    • No, Human-Stupidity does NOT support forced marriages

  • we do miss any mention  of male victims of "shotgun marriages". We hope the final report will at least mention such cases. Otherwise this is likely to be another case where only women victims will be considered and men’s rights being ignored men-are-victims-of-forced-marriage-too
  • we are very afraid that, in the future, false accusations of forced marriages, without due process, might become rampant.
    • we fear that a woman can, 50 years after the wedding, accuse her husband of forced marriage, just to get out of an unhappy relationship. The victimized man would be jailed, without due process, due to the pervasive doctrine "women don’t lie".  While we believe that women nowadays don’t lie (well, rarely lie) about forced marriage, we expect such numbers to increase, once women get guaranteed benefits from false accusations (see the false rape society).
  • we expect opponents of large scale immigration to see this as a further failure of multi-culturalism 
  • Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Forced marriages: death threats victimize thousands of Muslim girls – German Government Study” »
    Forced marriages: death threats victimize thousands of Muslim girl…
    » continues here »

    Weakness is a mighty weapon for fragile feminist crybaby girls: The Sexual Harassment Industry

    stop-whiningSexual harassment started with quid pro quo harassment, (="sexual shakedown", extended to all relationships with power imbalance, added peer harassment (which "sets the stage for campus rape" ),, contrapower harassment”   and closed the circle with grooming and electronic harassment, Thus Title IX, an anti discrimination law, went full circle to selectively discriminate against males and heterosexuality. MacKinnon: sexual harassment ‘ is done by men to women regardless of’ relative position on the formal hierarchy.". 

    All quotes from Daphne Patai: Heterophobia

    Sandler also displays her gift for concept-stretching by declaring that  rape is "the most extreme form of peer harassment" (p. 51). Could it  not equally well be said that murder is the most extreme form of conflict resolution, and that it has the same effect." 



    Men can not resist female weakness & fragility. Women’s weakness wins!

    Harassment-feminists dis-empower women

    stock-vector-crying-baby-girl-crying-small-child-vector-cartoon-illustration-of-cute-crying-baby-girl-51856987The SHI (sexual harassment industry) trains women to become more and more un-empowered, vulnerable and sensitive. So ridiculously weak, that for a "reasonable woman", innuendo, objectifying gaze , becomes a "devastating, life changing experience".

    Weakness as a weapon

    SHI never teaches women to become empowered. On the opposite, women get trained to be weak crybabies. It seems that chivalrous men instantly come to save a damsel in distress.

    Shoop’s bland words conceal the reality of what is being attempted here, which is a modification of public behavior in accordance with the patronizing assumption that women always need protection from aggressive males. This agenda of social transformation is fundamental to all that the SHI undertakes to do. It explains why there has never (to my knowledge) been a workshop on, say, how to keep oneself from taking offense at trivial slights or innuendos, or how to respond to an unwanted sexual overture in a spirited way that ends the problem. Instead, the suggested (and, increasingly, mandatory) workshops and training sessions are designed to bring an ever greater range of behavior within the purview of sexual harassment regulations.   Daphne Patai: Heterophobia

    taylor_swift_mean_1Sleights as small as touching a student’s hair or praising (or criticizing) a student’s paper are dramatized as "devastating experience" that "is life  changing".  Creation of a hostile environment by claiming, in class, that false rape accusations are a frequent and common occurrence was grounds for a harassment suit against a professor.

    All quotes from Daphne Patai: Sexual Harassment

    Female fragility:
    cause to rescind constitutional rights & academic freedom

    "We can’t lose track of the wider goal in order to defend some narrow definition of academic freedom." . And the predicament of young women caught in [harassments] relentlessly sexist system makes it a "false conflict" to set constitutional guarantees [of free speech] in opposition to harassment policies.

    Damsel in Distress color presentaion piece smlSuch concepts as "merit, rigor, standards, and excellence" are viewed as code words to promote " discriminatorv self-interest" on the part of the powerful (p. 311). "Academic freedom" is it slogan touted by "white male faculty" but, she gleefully affirms, one now increasingly challenged by "nonacademic" folk. "To many," Hippensteele writes, "academic freedom is currently being used as it license to speak and behave irresponsibly" (p. 311). 

    Explicit "sensitivity training" creates "victims" to demand redress

    Institutions must "encourage" the reporting of "sexual harassment activity"", so that "reluctant complainants", "victims" who fail to complain will become aware of their victim status and file complaints.


    in the discourse of sexual harassment, I have argued, training in victimhood plays a distinctive role. I can think of no other areas in life in which putative sufferers require so much help in order to recognize the damage supposedly inflicted on them and have come to depend on such careful instruction in how to script the accounts of their victimhood. Article after article produced by SHI writers insists-and this in itself should arouse our suspicion-that people need to learn how to identify the injuries they suffer.

    Sensitive whiny un-empowered women need special legal protection

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Weakness is a mighty weapon for fragile feminist crybaby girls: The Sexual Harassment Industry” »
    Weakness is a mighty weapon for fragile feminist crybaby girls: Th…
    » continues here »

    Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says She’s Not a ‘Predator’


    Double standard: men punished more harshly then women

    • If a man did the same, would it be called "underage sex"? No, it would be called rape. So there certainly is a double standard.
    • Would a man get away with 5 years? A man probably would get 15 to 25 years in jail.
    • In a TV interview, would a man not be treated much worse?

    Sex has more serious consequences for boys then for girls: The double standard should be inverted!

    In this modern age boys need more protection then girls (due to slower maturation, existing laws and scientific progress)

    • adolescent girls mature faster then boys, physically, intellectually and psychologically. Legal age for marriage was, and still is much lower for girls then for boys in most countries in the world (Marriagable Age | Wikipedia, Elisabethan marriage customs, Historical Age of Marriage). This has also to do with gender roles with the more mature man the provider and protector.
    • pregnancy, the real sex-induced "damage" to girls can be avoided by birth control. Girls have total freedom to decide if they carry a pregnancy to term or use their reproductive freedom for an early term abortion.
    • Things have changed since the EEA, where evolution has shaped our inborn moral feelings, and since biblical times, when our religious code was written down. Fairly recently, we devised birth control, abortion, DNA tests, government welfare and legal child support obligation for men.
    • In biblical times and the EEA, a girl had no option to avoid pregnancy through birth control, no option to terminate pregnancy through (early term) abortion, no courts nor police state  pursuing the father for support (except shotgun weddings due to pressure by the girl’s kin), no government welfare, no child care and job opportunities for single mothers. And her marriage prospects would have gotten really dim after having an out of wedlock baby.
    • Thus, girls and women can have risk-free sex with no long term consequences.
    • Boys, on the other hand are totally powerless once a woman got pregnant. Boys/men  have absolutely no chance to avoid the serious trauma of
      • decades of enforced ruinous child support  and alimony duty
      • with no automatic visitation rights to even see the child or influencing how the money is spent.
      • No rights but payment duties enforced by police and prison, not much different from slavery.

    Thanks to the AntiFeminist for calling our attention to some of the above issues.

    Now that we clarified that adolescent boys are in more need of protection then girls, Human-Stupidity dares to question if any adolescent needs government protection against his/her own decisions.

    Are draconian punishments needed to protect adolescents from their own actions and decisions?

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says She’s Not a ‘Predator’” »
    Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says …
    » continues here »

    Julie Carr performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years. Too harsh compared to 4 years for baby killer?


    Is our sex obsessed society punishing sexual child abuse too severely,
    compared to serious bodily harm to children?

    Julie Carr Performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years.
    Compare: killing baby: 4 years; causing permanent brain damage: 2 years.

    We will be attacked now with untrue accusations of "promoting child abuse". Which, of course, we are not doing. We don’t say Julie Carr should go unpunished.

    Warning: not safe for children. Do not continue reading if you are easily offended.

    We try to avoid explicit language, but even CNN uses some semi-explicit language


    We are wondering what is less damaging to the infant:

    1. a mother licking baby in the wrong places. (17 years in jail) plus 10 years supervision plus life long sex offender registration
    2. physical abuse: violent shaking of an infant causing permanent life long brain damage (2 years jail). Or killing infant (4-5 years in jail). No registration in murderous-nanny-registry to prevent future work as nanny.

    No, we are not condoning either behavior. We don’t think it is normal, healthy behavior. Sorry for questioning conventional wisdom and asking taboo questions.

    If we suggested killing Julie Carr vigilante style, to mete out a death sentence, or 4 life sentences without parole, that would be acceptable.

    But suggesting to even think about lower sentencing for certain kinds of child sexual abuse, is a no-no. We have been warned that this would be dangerous. We hope we will not attract vigilante threats.

    But, our sense of justice, our sense of scientific curiosity compels us to ask these questions: Are some licks in inappropriate places really warrant much longer jail terms then violent brain and spinal cord trauma? What kind and how much damage is being caused in the infant by mom licking in inappropriate places? No, we don’t promote or condone such behavior.

    And how many other so called "child rapists’ did not do more then Julie Carr? (Did we mention that we don’t condone this behavior, but are opposed to misleadingly call fondling and licking "rape").

    Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

    [Julie] Carr used a webcam to deliver four live videos of herself performing oral sex on her youngest daughter, according to the documents. The videos were sent to Nicholas Wilde, then 19, in West Midlands, England, whom Carr had met on an internet dating site, the documents said.
    Woman sentenced after streaming sex abuse of daughter over webcam|CNN

    We were surprised that the crime was labeled correctly:
    "oral sex on an infant"  and and not the usual "rape of infant".

    In case you don’t know, any sexual activity, like kissing or fondling with a minor is defined as "rape". Probably it would sound too weird and incredible to write "Mother raped infant daughter". If it were perpetrated by a man, certainly the headline would read "Man raped his infant daughter".   And everyone would imagine the guy having committed more atrocious acts then licking a baby’s privates.  (No, we don’t approve of this!)

    Compare this headline:  Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. Whereupon Human-Stupidity provokingly asked "What kind of rape"?  (No, we don’t condone Woolverton’s behavior).

    We did not want to be sexually explicit, so we refrained from the graphic terminology CNN used in this case here. But we suspect Woolverton probably engaged in similar activities as mother Julie Carr, like oral sex and manual indecent touching.  In Woolverton’s case, we can not know, due to modern misleading language definitions of rape.

    We will be crucified for this. People will falsely accuse us of condoning sexual abuse of children. We do not condone Woolverton’s or Julie Carr’s behavior..

    Rather our message is 2 fold

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Julie Carr performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; filmed it: 20 years. Too harsh compared to 4 years for baby killer?” »
    Julie Carr performed oral sex with baby daughter: 17 years jail; f…
    » continues here »