Last month, the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission (WSSGC) voted in favor of recommending a policy to the Legislature to offer reduced prison sentences, or alternative sentencing such as treatment, for certain sex offenses. However, they’re limiting their recommendations to sex crimes that “do not involve a real victim.”
So don’t get your knickers in a bind, all you advocates for victims of sex crimes. The leftists assure us that nobody will be hurt by this. In libertarian jargon, a crime without a victim isn’t a crime at all, and should be legalized immediately.
Unlike, you know, back in 2022, when the same board recommended treatment rather than prison for those caught possessing child pornography. And that recommended an end to public notices warning citizens of sex offender housing.
And now in 2025, on cue, Sen. Lisa Wellman, D-Mercer Island, introduced Senate Bill 5312, which would reduce the sex offender registration requirements for those caught in sting operations. The bill hasn’t passed yet, but don’t despair. This is Washington state. Perhaps they’re making sure they’ve secured permission from Seattle’s CHAZ district before proceeding.
Sex Offender Policy Board Brad Mayhew explained his decision when he said that “most of those are attempted crimes or communication with a minor when in fact they’re a detective. The research in this area was a little more spotty than it is in that related to the child sexual abuse images cases. What we found is research suggests that they're at lower risk than hands-on offenders, and there are others who take the position that are very similar to hands on offenders and that there isn't much of a distinction between them.”
What Mayhew fails to say that this is the exact OPPOSITE of what the “research” shows. Former FBI agents Robert Ressler, Roy Hazelwood, John Douglas (the inspiration for Jack Crawford in Silence of the Lambs) and others have decades of field experience and profiling expertise that Mayhew either fundamentally misunderstands or intentionally ignores.
And their research is unanimous. Sex criminals don’t go to sleep one night a productive member of society and wake up the next morning a sex criminal. They build up to it, and there are years of warning signs and red flags along the way. Just as there are no hardcore drug abusers who don’t first start out using the “victimless” drug of cannabis, there are no hardcore rapists and pedophiles who don't first start out by peeping, stalking, pornography, prostitution, and lesser forms of public exposure and harassment. Much like with drug abusers, the “victimless” form of sexual deviancy only satisfies the predator for so long. Eventually, he needs a more potent dose.
So why would Sex Offender Policy Board Chair Brad Mayhew present the public with false information that directly contradicts everything we know about sex crimes? Hmm, one does wonder. But surely the fact that Mayhew is also a defense attorney for sex offenders has nothing to do with it.
By decriminalizing sexually deviant behavior, the WSSGC is normalizing it. And sexual deviants get off on behavior that’s, well, deviant. That’s the whole point. Normal is boring. Deviant is exciting and forbidden.
It’s no surprise to anyone following the trends that, as the sexual “revolution” proceeds at full speed, sexual abuse has skyrocketed. Reports of sexual abuse have increased by 62.5% from 2020 to 2024. Out of the 61678 reported cases, 71.6% of the offenders had no prior criminal history. Meaning, they’re new to the game and can be expected to continue sexually assaulting people.
To be fair, there are still a few Democrats with decency. As Tim O’Brien pointed out here on PJ Media, Rep. Lauren Davis, D-Seattle, contradicts Mayhew’s assertion that the sex offenders for whom he advocates are all deer-in-headlights autistic 20-year-olds who can’t be held accountable for doing a little internet exploring more out of curiosity than ill-intent. Davis stated “that is not what the data reflects. There have been many, many people caught in these stings, of course, who hold positions of power, including positions, judges, teachers, et cetera, that have plenty of experience with the world, so to speak.”
She continues, “These are cases where a person has taken a substantial step to have sex with a child. That is the totality of these cases.”
Exactly. You don’t need a victim to have a crime. If I shoot a bullet at you and the bullet misses, it is technically a “victimless” crime. But my intent was to murder you. That’s why the crime of attempted murder exists and is punishable by law. The crime of attempted sexual assault of a minor should be handled no differently.
But reflecting on the original idea of reducing and/or abolishing sentencing for sex offenders, what’s the reason behind it? If Washington Democrats worry more about the criminals than the victims, why limit their concern to only sex offenders? Why not murderers, arsonists, fraudsters, etc.?
Maybe it’s because they don’t think sexual deviancy is wrong.
Since the 1960s, the left has weaponized sex under the false flag of “liberation” in order to weaken and dehumanize us. They encourage any and all sex, whenever and wherever and with whoever, because they know it animalizes and objectifies us. It refocuses priorities not on responsibility, love, or strengthening the bonds of loyalty and affection between people, but on carnal, primitive desire.
Generations of broken families and single mother households, caused by both women and men doing exactly what the left encouraged them to do, have not dissuaded the left. If one were a cynic, one might be led to believe that this is the result the left wanted, i.e., the dissolution of the nuclear family.
Girls are taught younger and younger to weaponize their sexuality, despite talk out of the other side of their mouths that they don’t want to be objectified. And for all the left’s lip service about “toxic masculinity,” they have no problem with apps like Tinder that teach young men that cheap, consequence-free sex is just a few swipes away.
And left’s face it. From Jeffrey Epstein to Roman Polanski, from Kevin Spacey to Anthony Weiner, from Harvey Weinstein to Eric Swalwell and whatever other closet skeletons are being hid in Hollywood and Washington D.C., the consensus is that sex is something they have an inherent right to, the victims and their shattered lives be damned.
And if this includes children? Hey, age is just a number, right? A social construct? Invented, just like gender, by the cisheteronormative patriarchy? And of course you puritanical Christian fascists would oppose free love and free choice and personal agency and empowerment and all the other bumper sticker talking points.
If the dissolution of the nuclear family is the goal of the far left, there aren’t many quicker paths to that goal than traumatizing generations of children to serve the putrid fetishes of the adults into which we entrust their care. The first and foremost expectation of any functioning society is the protection of its own children. When we refuse do that – alas, when we have elected leaders openly legislating to make it easier to get away with sexually abusing children – we’ve lost our right to be called a civilized people. And the downward spiral will be very, very ugly.
But I’m not convinced most leftists have even thought that far ahead. Give the leftists of yesteryear some credit. The Jacobins and Stalinists stole children from the parents with the goal of brainwashing and reeducating them to be good little stewards of the State. That goal, twisted as it is, nonetheless possesses a collective quality to it.
By contrast, I believe most of our modern leftists don’t push for the legalization of child rape to serve some transcendent, long-term political strategy. I believe they want to legalize sex with children because this is what they themselves crave. They are reptilian cretins who slither through the filth of their own degenerate sexuality to satiate their basest carnal impulses. They are unable to think or feel beyond this.
To “moderate” Democrats who get queasy about the far left but nonetheless continue voting “D” in lockstep because you want to protect Obamacare subsidies and teacher pensions and taxpayer funded abortions, at what point will the grotesque crimes of your co-ideologues be enough to shock you out of your lethargy? How many children (and adults) need to be abused, raped, mutilated, destroyed, and left to rot before your cute pet cause takes the backburner for an election cycle or two?
No? Ah, well, I had to try. I suppose there were voters in pre-war Germany who felt that socialized health care took precedence as well.
But you don’t get to claim that you didn’t vote for it. The leftist mask has been off for a while now, and their intentions are clear. Our children are nothing but objects of gratification to them. And you voted for it. You voted for all of it.
