This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Some quotes from &quot;The Mother of Feminism&quot; - Child Rapist Simone De Beauvoir

Simone is one of the most, if not the most important figure in feminism. She practically invented the ideology. These are quotes of her abuse of her youngest victim Nathalie Sorokine (A 12 year-old girl).

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 1

cat_mac

20

This is honestly horrific. Has anyone pressed charges against her? Surely if these are public knowledge someone must have looked into it?

Reply 2

CookieButter

OP

15

Original post by cat_mac

This is honestly horrific. Has anyone pressed charges against her? Surely if these are public knowledge someone must have looked into it?

The mother of one of her victims tried to press charges against her. Simone convinced her friends and the girl that she abused to lie for her. The investigation at the time could not conclusively prove that she had raped the girl but she was fired from her school for being suspected of having sexually abused her students and procuring them for her friends.

These letters and diary were found in her flat and published a few years after her death. Feminist organisations have since then done their utmost to subvert any publication criticising this woman's life. People have tried writing about this issue...few have been successful in publishing their work and those few have faced serious repercussions...A recent example being Carole Symore Jones. She wrote a book about the life of Simone that included her abuse of children called A Dangerous liaison. She faced a HUGE backlash from feminists that resulted in much of her book being censored.

Simone died in 1986 aged 76, having never been held to account for her abuse of children. At the time she was sexually abusing her own daughter

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 3

anarchism101

17

Original post by CookieButter

These letters and diary were found in her flat and published a few years after her death. Feminist organisations have since then done their utmost to subvert any publication criticising this woman's life. People have tried writing about this issue...few have been successful in publishing their work and those few have faced serious repercussions...A recent example being Carole Symore Jones. She wrote a book about the life of Simone that included her abuse of children called A Dangerous liaison. She faced a HUGE backlash from feminists that resulted in much of her book being censored.

Simone died in 1986 aged 76, having never been held to account for her abuse of children. At the time she was sexually abusing her own daughter

De Beauvoir had no natural children. She did have an adoptive daughter, Sylvie Le Bon, who was already an adult when they first met and who was only adopted (largely for legal purposes) in her 30s, a few years before De Beauvoir died. I don't know where you're getting the idea that De Beauvoir sexually abused Le Bon, especially given that Le Bon denies their relationship was even sexual at all.

Also, couple of minor comments to end:
- The author's name was Carole Seymour-Jones, not Symore.
- De Beauvoir died at 78, not 76.

Normally I wouldn't bother with such minor errors, but combined with the more significant ones they reinforce my suspicion that you're getting this information from a dodgy source of some kind.

Reply 4

anarchism101

17

Original post by CookieButter

Simone is one of the most, if not the most important figure in feminism. She practically invented the ideology. These are quotes of her abuse of her youngest victim Nathalie Sorokine (A 12 year-old girl). These are from her private letters and diary found hidden in her flat after her death and published soon after.

I can't find any evidence that Sorokine was 12 apart from similar posts on other forums, which obviously aren't reliable. Virtually every source I can find says Sorokine was actually 17.

In terms of the legality of this, under French law both before WW2 and today, 17 was over the age of consent. Under modern French law, the relationship would still have been illegal due to De Beauvoir being her teacher (albeit only just - the law today would require the student be 18), but that law was introduced after WW2 and it doesn't appear to have had a parallel in pre-war France. The legal grounds for Sorokine's parents charging De Beauvoir, and for considering Sorokine a "minor", seems to be a Vichy Regime law (generally today considered an example of Vichy homophobia) banning gay sex under the age of 21.

Reply 5

CookieButter

OP

15

Original post by anarchism101

De Beauvoir had no natural children.

You have a habit of addressing claims that nobody makes in their comments.

Original post by anarchism101

I don't know where you're getting the idea that De Beauvoir sexually abused Le Bon
especially given that Le Bon denies their relationship was even sexual at all.

I'm not sure what things are like on your planet but here on Earth sex with children is considered abuse. Simone first met Sylvie when Sylvie was 16 and she was 53. She engaged in sex with her when the girl turned 17. Not only that but she convinced her to have sex with Jean Paul Sartre when he turned 73. This is a woman who had no respect for any other woman in her life.

Original post by anarchism101

I can't find any evidence that Sorokine was 12 apart from similar posts on other forums, which obviously aren't reliable. Virtually every source I can find says Sorokine was actually 17.

In terms of the legality of this, under French law both before WW2 and today, 17 was over the age of consent. Under modern French law, the relationship would still have been illegal due to De Beauvoir being her teacher (albeit only just - the law today would require the student be 18), but that law was introduced after WW2 and it doesn't appear to have had a parallel in pre-war France. The legal grounds for Sorokine's parents charging De Beauvoir, and for considering Sorokine a "minor", seems to be a Vichy Regime law (generally today considered an example of Vichy homophobia) banning gay sex under the age of 21.

So basically you feel entitled to preach to people about a topic that you are clearly googling and had no clue about before they informed you about it. Cute.

By the way that article/blog where you read that Simone died at 78 and also judging from a couple of other hints in your comment most likely was written by me...and the fact that you read that blog and still came back to defend this woman speaks volumes for the kind of person that you are.

Nathalie was born in 1926. She first met Simone in 1936 when she was 11 when simone set about grooming her and she was first raped by Simone in 1939 before she turned 13.

In 1939 Simone wrote this following letter to Sarte of a sexual encounter with Nathalie who was at the time 12 years old having not turned 13 yet:

“I feel a bit like some clumsy seducer confronted with a young virgin, as mysterious as all virgins are. Only the seducer at least has a clear mission, which is to seduce and, as it were, pierce the mystery.”

Piece of advice don't preach. You are not good at it.

You also come across like a person who wants to justify their beliefs regardless of the truth. Hence your desperate attempt at finding faults in this thread in an effort to discredit it. Debating people like you is a total waste of time.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 6

anarchism101

17

Original post by CookieButter

You have a habit of addressing claims that nobody makes in their comments.

Don't be disingenuous. You know full well that most people would take an unqualified reference to "her own daughter" to probably refer to a biological daughter, or at least someone who she had raised as a parent. Neither would be an accurate description of De Beauvoir's relationship with Le Bon, who as I said, was formally adopted by De Beauvoir only when she was in her 30s, for essentially pragmatic legal reasons.

As an analogy, to describe the Emperor Augustus as Julius Caesar's "own son" without mentioning at all that this was purely legalistic and that his actual real-life relationship to Caesar (both biologically and socially) was considerably more distant than father-son, would clearly be a historical misrepresentation. The same applies here.

I'm not sure what things are like on your planet but here on Earth sex with children is considered abuse.

Where do you live where sex with teenagers over the age of consent is considered "sex with children"? I can say with confidence that if you claimed in print in the UK that a particular "had sex with children" in reference to 17-year-olds, they would crush you in a libel trial.

So basically you feel entitled to preach to people about a topic

No, not people in general, just you. You come across as fringe conspiracist type, and debunking those is always enjoyable and never too difficult.

By the way that article/blog where you read that Simone died at 78 and also judging from a couple of other hints in your comment most likely was written by me...and the fact that you read that blog and still came back to defend this woman speaks volumes for the kind of person that you are.

No idea what you're talking about. I got her death age from her Wikipedia article. If you've alternative sources proving that De Beauvoir was born later than 9 January, 1908 (you've already confirmed that she did indeed die in 1986), then please provide it.

Nathalie was born in 1926.

Try 1921. If a single Wiki page short on sources, isn't enough for you, then De Beauvoir's own page describes her as 17 in 1939, something corroborated here as well as by a staunchly anti-feminist source here, plus this biography of De Beauvoir, which states that Sorokine was 20 in late 1941, which again corroborates the above.

She first met Simone in 1936 when she was 11 when simone set about grooming her and she was first raped by Simone in 1939 before she turned 13.

Your story doesn't fit even on its own logic. You claimed she was born in 1926, but now you're saying she was 11 in 1936?

You also come across like a person who wants to justify their beliefs regardless of the truth. Hence your desperate attempt at finding faults in this thread in an effort to discredit it. Debating people like you is a total waste of time.

Actually, if I'm being brutally honest, I'd say I was less motivated by the content of the thread than by the fact that you made it. Having seen a couple of your rather silly conspiratorial-esque sensationalist claims on a couple of other threads, I felt confident upon seeing the title of this thread and your username, that this would be more of the same. And so far, I've seen nothing to contradict that.

Reply 7

CookieButter

OP

15

Original post by anarchism101

I'm being brutally honest, I'd say I was less motivated by the content of the thread than by the fact that you made it. .

and this is why you have trolled every single one of my threads with your comments since last year? do you understand the meaning of the word honesty?

You question people's authenticity because you project yourself on them..You are a dishonest person and you think that everyone is like you.

I remember myself ignoring you last year because of the desperately hopeless and childish nature of your replies looking for spelling mistakes etc.....you use spelling mistakes to try to discredit arguments and you have the audacity to call others silly. I gave you a chance this year but it seems you have not grown much. You are still suffering from the same level of desperation as you did last year. Another funny thing about all your replies in this thread is that you also have the audacity to claim that you are not motivated by my threads.....Mate, you get involved in most all of my threads and comments. Last year you would reply to all of them....even after i started ignoring you you still carried on replying to my comments...calling you obsessed with my comments and threads would be an understatement.

You had no idea about this topic before i indotruced it to you. You googled all your information and every single time i correct you you come back at me with more nonsense that i have to correct again and again...and again and again...eventually this will reach a point where i loose hope in replying to you and just plain ignore your existence again.

Nathalie was born in 1926. The anti-feminist book that your referred to has the date for her suspension wrong. Nathalie's mother first made her accusation against Simone in 1941 and the headmaster of the school where she worked recommended she be fired in 1942.

Here's what Carole Seymour-Jones writes about this issue from Simone's private letters and diaries:

"In her memoirs Beauvoir claims that Mme Sorokine’s first complaint against her daughter’s teacher dated back as far as 27 November 1941. On 3 April 1942 Rector Gidel... recommended Beauvoir’s exclusion from teaching." In 1943 she became suspended.

In 1943 Nathalie turned 17 having been born in 1926. He was right about her age when Simone was fired but wrong about the dates of when she was fired. He has other similar minor mistakes in his book too. I'm guessing like you he relied on google as apposed to reliable sources. I've read carole's book and nearly all of simone's books and articles and sartre's autobiography and many of his articles too.

Simone during the 60s and 70s penned petitions and lead campaigns to legalise paedophilia...and here you are desperately through spelling mistakes trying to defend her .....do you have any shame? does logic mean anything to you?

This might be my last reply to your comments. You are the sort of person that will do anything to justify their rotten beliefs. Like I stated before, people such as this, debating them is a waste of time.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 8

anarchism101

17

Original post by CookieButter

and this is why you have trolled every single one of my threads with your comments since last year? do you understand the meaning of the word honesty?

You question people's authenticity because you project yourself on them..You are a dishonest person and you think that everyone is like you.

I remember myself ignoring you last year because of the desperately hopeless and childish nature of your replies looking for spelling mistakes etc.....you use spelling mistakes to try to discredit arguments and you have the audacity to call others silly. I gave you a chance this year but it seems you have not grown much. You are still suffering from the same level of desperation as you did last year. Another funny thing about all your replies in this thread is that you also have the audacity to claim that you are not motivated by my threads.....Mate, you get involved in most all of my threads and comments. Last year you would reply to all of them....even after i started ignoring you you still carried on replying to my comments...calling you obsessed with my comments and threads would be an understatement.

According to your profile, you've started 9 threads in the past few weeks, and prior to that none for about a year. With the exception of this one and the other one on abortion where you made claims about De Beauvoir, by my count I've commented on precisely 1 of the other 7. As for earlier ones, I'm not going to go through every single thread you've started and check what contribution I've made and how significant, but a quick flick through suggests to me that I haven't commented on the majority of them.

So yeah, so much for that.

Nathalie was born in 1926.

You have provided precisely zero evidence of this. By contrast, I have provided several sources indicating a substantially earlier birth date.

This has been the pattern throughout this thread. You make unsubstantiated claims, then when challenged, even with evidence contradicting your claims, you merely repeat and re-assert the claims, again providing no evidence.

Here's what Carole Seymour-Jones writes about this issue from Simone's private letters and diaries:

"In her memoirs Beauvoir claims that Mme Sorokine’s first complaint against her daughter’s teacher dated back as far as 27 November 1941. On 3 April 1942 Rector Gidel... recommended Beauvoir’s exclusion from teaching." In 1943 she became suspended.

None of this tells us anything about Sorokine's age. That the complaint dated to late 1941 was noted in one of the pages I linked in my previous post, and I have nowhere contested that fact.

The anti-feminist book that your referred to has the date for her suspension wrong. Nathalie's mother first made her accusation against Simone in 1941 and the headmaster of the school where she worked recommended she be fired in 1942.

In 1943 Nathalie turned 17 having been born in 1926. He was right about her age when Simone was fired but wrong about the dates of when she was fired. He has other similar minor mistakes in his book too. I'm guessing like you he relied on google as apposed to reliable sources. I've read carole's book and nearly all of simone's books and articles and sartre's autobiography and many of his articles too.

Yet you've provided no relevant evidence from any of them as to Sorokine's age, only circumstantial quotes giving other details of her relationship with De Beauvoir.

But since you're apparently so taken with Seymour-Jones' account, here's a few bits of evidence from her:
- Firstly, here she refers to Sorokine starting at Sorbonne University in October 1939. That would indicate she was then about 18.
- Secondly, here where she explicitly refers to Sorokine as "Nineteen-year-old Natalie". This appears to be in early 1943, though I guess she could instead be referring to her age when the complaint was initially made, i.e. late 1941, just over a year earlier.
- Thirdly, from the same page, she says that Sorokine first met De Beauvoir in 1938 when she was her teacher at the Lycée Molière. While, the Molière does seem to have been a full secondary school (unlike most lycées, which are just 15-18), the Wikipedia page (sadly only in French) actually includes the 1938-39 syllabus by year, as well as a brief mention of De Beauvoir's teaching, which indicates that De Beauvoir's philosophy classes were only for final year students. This corroborates with the account of Bianca Lamblin (another student who De Beauvoir had an affair with), who says that De Beauvoir only taught her in her final year. This suggests Sorokine was roughly 16 or 17 in late 1938.

So a bit of a mixed bag, that could indicate a birthdate of anywhere from 1921 to late 1923 (or theoretically possibly early 1924, if you only look at the second point and stretch it as late as possible). But whatever she means, Seymour-Jones quite clearly contradicts your claim of Sorokine being born in 1926.

Simone during the 60s and 70s penned petitions and lead campaigns to legalise paedophilia...and here you are desperately through spelling mistakes trying to defend her

Let's accept this claim at face value purely for the sake of argument; your logic here appears to be "This proves she was a bad person, therefore you should just accept any other negative things I claim about her regardless of accuracy." I hope I don't need to explain the problem with that reasoning.

Oh, and with regard to "spelling mistakes" - I noted once, at the end of a post, that you mangled Seymour-Jones' name. I explicitly stated that it was a minor point that I wouldn't normally pick up on, and was only noting it as it contributed to the impression that you were getting your information from a dodgy source. That you're picketing at it suggests a general lack of substance in your response.

This might be my last reply to your comments. You are the sort of person that will do anything to justify their rotten beliefs. Like I stated before, people such as this, debating them is a waste of time.