FACEBOOK GROUP FOR VICTIMS OF NARCISSISTS https://www.facebook.com/groups/NoNarcsRUs/1187498977942998/

Tuesday, December 5, 2017


In a First, a Man Is Charged for Rape Over the Internet

 Sweden’s laws don’t require penetration to call it rape. 

 This article originally appeared on Motherboard. 

 Warning: This post and links within contain depictions of sexual abuse and rape. 

Society’s wrestled with the idea of what is and isn’t rape online since the dawn of avatars and chat rooms. Even before graphic user interfaces and the modern internet, “rape” happened in text-based servers—the most infamous, perhaps original, example documented in Julian Dibbell’s 1993 essay, “A Rape in Cyberspace,” which described abuse in a MUD server. In 2007, Belgium police investigated a Second Life user for “virtual rape.” World of Warcraft has a rape den. Harassment and abusive behavior in virtual worlds is rampant. 

But on Thursday—in a first for Sweden, and possibly for the world—a court found a man guilty of rape over the internet. He’d coerced children in Canada, the US, and Britain into performing sexual acts in front of a webcam while he watched, by threatening them and their families if they didn’t comply, according to the Associated Press. 

Prosecutors say that Bjorn Samstrom, a 41-year-old Swedish man, “threatened to post photos of the 26 girls and one boy on pornography sites or to kill their relatives unless they performed sex acts as he watched.” He targeted his victims, all under age 15, between 2015 and early 2017. He also recorded them, adding a child pornography possession charge to his sentencing of 10 years in prison and $131,590 total in damages to the victims. 

Samstrom never met them in person, but Swedish law does not require penetrative intercourse to be considered “rape.” 

“Most rape laws actually require the accused to have themselves sexually penetrated the victim, so in almost any other country it would be impossible to prosecute what happened here as rape,” James Chalmers, Regius professor of law at the University of Glasgow, told me in an email. “It will definitely set a precedent in Sweden, although it was already clear there that in principle there could be a rape conviction in a case like this.

”This is the first conviction of its kind in Sweden, and it’s probably the first conviction like this in any country. Thursday’s ruling isn’t likely to lead to more rape prosecutions for this behavior in other countries or change precedents around the world, Chalmers said. “But it might encourage other countries to think about how they define rape in legislation.”


Sunday, November 19, 2017


“In order to escape accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his power to promote forgetting. Secrecy and silence are the perpetrator’s first line of defense. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure that no one listens. To this end, he marshals an impressive array of arguments, from the most blatant denial to the most sophisticated and elegant rationalization.

After every atrocity one can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: "it never happened; the victim lies; the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it upon herself; and in any case it is time to forget the past and move on." The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater is his prerogative to name and define reality, and the more completely his arguments prevail.”

Judith Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence - From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror


It's out now with more coming. The deluge of women and men who we sexually abused and assaulted. What’s triggering to me is the pushback saying: she/he is crazy, they dondrigs, they’re lying, I don’t remember, they’re exaggerating.  Yes heard it all before. Lately if an accused person says this I’m tempted to take it as an admission of guilt.

How interesting that YWL is a Right Winger -  the party of Roy Moore and Donald Trump.  YWL (I have a verified chat with him that proves this) once told me he likes very young girls with big breasts. EEEWWWW.  And like Trump he attacks and abuses any of his accusers.

If you ask him YWL will say he took his accusers to court (NOPE.  Zero proof or documentation of any court issues).  He and his wife lied to a police detective friend of theirs about me.  This detective harassed me quietly (off the books so to speak) and found out a very different and verifiable story.  OOPS!!  Did YWL ask the harassment of me be "off book" so he wouldn't get arrested when found he LIED?  Oh and there's the Cease & Desist I filed on him...

He'll tell you the women he's harassed are ugly, liars, fat, making it up, obsessed with him.  Do all these creeps say the same thing? Sure sounds like it.

Oh yes and there's that matter of his favorite Madam - Julie Moya - getting busted just after all the evidence about YWLwas turned over to NYPD Computer Crimes?  Crap his pants much?

This man admitted - in verified by NYPD computer chats - that he looked at "every woman like they're just a hole."   Yet on his blog makes sweeping statements about morality.


Friday, October 20, 2017



Like much of America, I’ve been watching the Harvey Weinstein scandal unfold, appalled but not surprised. More than 40 women have now accused the famous and powerful movie producer, whose films have won 81 Oscars, of sexual harassment and even rape.

The Weinstein Company, which he co-founded, fired him. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences threw him out. The Los Angeles police have opened an investigation.

Still, Hollywood has always been about starlets who want to make it big and powerful men who took advantage of them — that’s why everyone knows about the “casting couch.”

So I wondered — was Weinstein just a prolific user of the couch, or was he disordered?

The answer came in an article published by the New Yorker yesterday in which current and former employees of the Weinstein Company described their boss’s behavior. Although no one used the word, they described a raging psychopath.

Here’s how the article starts:
  • Harvey throttled someone.

  • Harvey called an employee a f*cking moron.

  • Harvey threw the shoes, the book, the phone, the eggs.

  • Harvey went to work with his shirt on inside-out and no one had the courage to tell him.

  •  If you f*cking say anything to him, the assistant said to the other assistant, I’m dead

  • Harvey would eat the fries off your plate, smash them in his face, and wash them down with a cigarette and a Diet Coke.

  • He belittled and berated: You can’t name three Frank Capra movies? What the f*ck are you even doing here? 

  • He was funny; he was grotesque, a boisterous, boorish, outrageous, gluttonous caricature of a man, a Hollywood type. A “man of appetites”; a philanderer; a cartoon beast, surrounded by beauties.
A group of employees submitted a statement to the New Yorker saying that they didn’t know how bad Weinstein was. Here’s how they described him:
  • a man with an infamous temper
  • manipulative
  • a womanizer with extramarital affairs
  • unbridled ambition
  • aggressive deal making
  • insatiable desire to win and get what he wanted
  • unabashed love for celebrity
So Harvey Weinstein may be more than a sexual predator. These are all examples of psychopathic behavior.

Harvey Weinstein’s former employees reckon with what they knew and what they didn’t, on NewYorker.com.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

The sway sociopaths hold over their “minions” is hard to fathom

by O. N. Ward

The Tsunami Pounds Ashore
In spite of the adultery and Paul’s clear manipulation in getting me to move to Utah, which was clear to anyone who had two eyes and a brain, Paul’s family rallied around him. I’m sure the money he lavished on them did not hurt, and he likely reframed everything, finally revealing the “truth” about me. He had endured me long enough. Surely, they wanted him to finally be happy.

I had always enjoyed the time I spent with Paul’s mother, and she consistently presented herself as deeply religious and moral, so when Paul took Ella, I reached out to Ruth for help. I was not prepared for her response. She said she was sure Paul was doing what was best for the kids, that he would never do anything wrong or hurtful, and that I was just being melodramatic and would be laughing about this in no time. Knowing Daniel was distressed about Ella, Ruth sent Daniel a letter quoting advice from a famous sports coach that said he should never allow himself to be upset about anything for more than twenty-four hours. Ruth added that Daniel needed to show more respect for his father and his father’s decisions. She was sure Daniel was only angry with Paul because I was encouraging Daniel to feel that way. Worse, she told Daniel that, obviously, I did not value family the way Paul and Linda did.

Ruth’s behavior is another example of “cognitive dissonance” at work. How does a woman who takes great pride in her strong religious beliefs, goes to church every Sunday, and admonishes others for any lack of ethics or morality not even blink an eye at the amoral and hurtful behavior of her own son? How did she rationalize the inconsistency between her religious beliefs and Paul’s adultery and other hurtful behavior? Paul really deserves to be happy? Onna probably drove Paul away—what else was he supposed to do?

Daniel was hurt and incredulous. He wrote unrepeatable words on his grandmother’s letter. Paul sent me an email with a not so veiled threat that he would take me to court for slandering him to his family. Ruth and I never spoke again. Given Ruth’s choice to blind herself to her son’s behavior and to be insensitive and hurtful towards Daniel, I had no interest in continuing a relationship with her even without Paul’s threat.

I was furious at Jessica for her betrayal and for abandoning our relationship at a time when I desperately needed to maintain the close relationships in my life. Some nights my anger at her kept me awake. In a pique of frustration at 3:00 a.m. one sleepless night, I pounded my pillows, sobbing, and then threw each of them against the wall. It did not help. It just made me feel stupid, because I knew my fury was misplaced. I tried to view Jessica as the victim of a brilliant and well-funded sociopath. I had been fooled and manipulated by Paul for almost twenty years. It would be unfair to hold my teenage daughter to a higher standard.


(YWL's wife believed him.  Believes I am stalking him since college and that I made it all up.  I am sad for her.  One day she will find out everything - not just the tale he told her.)