What a Paedocrite!! Leading Children’s Rights Campaigner Jailed for Child Rape

We’re only into February and it looks like the 2018 David Fraudtrelle Paedocrite of the Year Award has already been decided. Peter Newell, convicted of anally raping a 13 year old boy this week, was a leading ‘children’s rights’ campaigner who worked for UNICEF and who co-wrote the 2007 Implementation Guidebook for the Convention on the Rights of femihags the Child – the infamous feminist United Nations treaty that defines a ‘child’ as any person under the age of 18, and which defines a real or virtual ‘sexualized’ image of a person who looks under 18 as child pornography.


A leading children’s rights campaigner, who helped governments around the world tackle the issue of abuse, has been jailed for raping a 13-year-old boy.

Former UNICEF consultant Peter Newell admitted three counts of indecent assault and two counts of buggery and was sentenced to six years, eight months in prison.

He has also been placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely.

The ‘horrific’ sexual assaults took place over a three-year period in the 1960s but have only come to light following a police investigation last year.

I’ve always said that homosexual paedocrites tend to be the very worst kind.

You can view the guidebook that the child raping paedocrite co-wrote here.

What a f***ing paedocrite!!!

‘Leering’ at Women or Girls to be Made Hate Crime in UK

Life for men in the UK will get even more unbearable soon after feminists and police chiefs gave more details on their plans to make ‘street harassment’ – which apparently now includes ‘leering’ at women or girls – a misogynist hate crime. The female deputy leader of the ‘Liberal’ Democrats party, Joe Swinson, justified the proposals while being interviewed on live TV.

Last month it emerged that a scheme that could lead to sexism being made a hate crime with tougher sentences could be extended nationwide.

Nottinghamshire Police introduced the trial in 2016 in which it recorded incidents such as wolf whistling, street harassment, verbal abuse and taking photographs without consent as a hate crime.

Police chiefs are due to receive a full report on the pilot scheme and other forces around the country are said to have expressed an interest in following Nottinghamshire’s lead.

Ms Swinson wants it to be rolled out across the country. She said: ‘This is a hate crime that is directed towards you because you happen to be a woman.

‘For schoolgirls walking to school getting leered at, getting shouted at – that kind of harassment is happening on an everyday basis.

‘We’ve seen some of that being called out with campaigns like #metoo.

‘But we also know, all of us women on the panel have all experienced it – most women have experienced some sort of harassment in their daily life at some point.

A similar law is also being proposed in France, by this feminist politician :

The Bloomberg article linked above mentions that feminists in Portugal recently made it a criminal offence to ‘sexually harass’ an under 14 in the street, with a punishment of 3 years in prison. I have no idea if believing that the girl was older would be enough to spare you in court. All these inititives are based on the Council of Europe’s ‘Convention On Violence Against Women’, which the International Sexual Trade Union fittingly held in Istanbul, the literal meeting point of Western puritan feminism and Islam. The convention calls on all European countries to outlaw street harassment, and specifically calls for any public behaviour which ‘reduces a person to a sex object on account of their gender’ to be criminalized. Every country in Europe signed up to this feminist anti-male hate charter in Istanbul, but so far only a few have actually put it into law. Membership of the Council of Europe is even wider than the EU, so even Brexit can’t stop the UK implementing its treaties.

Here is a Portugese article on their sexual harassment law : https://www.dn.pt/portugal/interior/piropos-ja-sao-crime-e-dao-pena-de-prisao-ate-tres-anos-4954471.html

Google Translation :

Amendment of the Penal Code in August went unnoticed. Unwanted “sexual offers” are punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment.

“Eat you all”; “O drunk, do you want from above or do you want from below? “I gave you three without taking”; “O star, do you want a comet?”; “O my jewel, come to the goldsmith.” Banal examples, leaving aside the more hairy (and not less common, on the contrary), of what is usually called “piropo” and that women, from the beginning of adolescence, listen in the Portuguese streets. And since August have, by their nature of “sexual proposals”, criminal relevance, on proposal of the PSD, with a prison sentence of up to one year, or three cases are directed at children under 14. This is an addition to the article 170 of the Criminal Code, “sexual harassment”, which criminalized already the exhibitionism and the “contacts of sexual nature”, commonly known as “apalpões”.

This legislative amendment, made in the context of the transposition into national law of the Istanbul Convention – the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Violence against Women and Domestic Violence signed in Istanbul in 2011 – has gone completely unnoticed, although the subject has been much debated on social networks and profusely commented on in the media. Consistently ridiculed as “exaggeration”, “feminist hysteria” and even “violation of freedom of expression” and “end of seduction,” the criminalization of sexual harassment, both on the street and at work, was first proposed by the feminist collective UMAR. Women Alternative and Response] in 2011, and then by the BE, who in 2013 presented a bill in that sense, which would eventually “fall” in the works in the specialty.

The idea was therefore that sexual harassment was kept outside the Penal Code (only penalized in the Labor Code). But Cecília Honório, the deputy from the bloc who took the side of her party’s bill, admits that the amendment to article 170, which she abstained from voting (all other parliamentary groups voted in favor), criminalizes even a considerable part of harassment, despite using another name. “It was a change that came up in the final proposals that most PSD / CDS put in. And really after all the discussion about the subject has passed through the raindrops, no one has spoken of it.But being a euphemism because it does not talk about harassment , what has been recorded is very good, at all levels. It proves that all the pressure that was and the debate that took place, despite all the ridicule, gave results. And he concludes: “In this the majority [PSD and CDS] behaved very well.”

Carla Rodrigues, PSD MP during the last parliamentary term, was the coordinator of the parliamentary working group dealing with the legislative package on the Istanbul Convention. And assume the maternity of the initiative. “The amendment came from our proposal, which was intended to respond to a situation that was not provided for in the Criminal Code. I realized from the hearings and debates that I attended, including a conference on harassment promoted by UMAR, that there were situations that were not foreseen as a crime and that they should be.There was the draft of the BE with which I did not agree, and we understand that it was not the Convention’s obligation to penalize harassment, even though there was no consensus on this.And even in my parliamentary group there were some resistance But I gave some examples and managed to convince people. ”

The teenage harassment seems to have been decisive for this: “I’ve talked about cases like that of a 15-year-old girl on the street and an old man coming in and saying,” I used to do that to you, I did that to you. “That sensitized them more. The insult or insult has always been provided for in the Penal Code, but a man to tease, to frighten a girl was not committing a crime. And one of the arguments against criminalizing is that women have to know how to deal with it, to respond – but the teenagers too? I have a three-year-old daughter and I talked about this with my husband, about how we would feel about it happening to him, how he could protect it, and I came to this formulation. ”

Carla Rodrigues believes that the term “applies in all circumstances: in the workplace, on the street, in social groups, in any situation where an aggressor practices any of these acts. I think women and girls are much “It is necessary to be aware of this and to denounce it.It is necessary to disclose the existence of this new crime.”

The MP of the MP Isabel Moreira settled. “Much of what people wanted to be criminalized through the creation of the new article of the Penal Code and which was poorly formulated in the BE proposal, which in my opinion would never pass before the Constitutional Court, is envisaged in the amendment to the 170th and the new tip.

Carla Rodrigues
Carla Rodrigues – the FemiNazi behind the Portugese law

Rollo Tomassi SMV Chart Debunked

I saw this quote from an academic treatise on ‘The Evolution of the Human Mating System’ in a Tweet by Rolf Degan. ‘Ephebophiles’ please note.

peak female attractiveness age

Note the sentence ”with men seeming to prefer women younger than the age of peak fecundity‘. I’ve argued for this for ten years now, putting myself against the Manosphere core assumption that because of the well known ‘scientific fact’ that women peak in fertility around the age of 21, it follows that this is the age most normal men find most attractive in a woman. It has most firmly been enshrined in Manosophere lore by the grandee Rollo Tomassi and his infamous ‘peak sexual market value curve’ graph.

SMV curve Rollo Tomassi

As you can see, he actually claims that a woman reaches her peak sexual market value at the age of 23 (presumably, Tomassi thinks peak female fertility occurs at that age). This always struck me as complete and utter nonsense. A peak fertility of 21 or 23 (if that age is correct, and might not always historically have been so and is likely influenced by age of motherhood itself) means nothing other than it is the age at which women are most likely to give birth at after sex. It might say something important about likely female sexual strategy or preferences, it tells us little or nothing about what age a man would be expected to prefer in a sexual partner. In a society or culture in which some form of mate bonding is the norm, a man who is attracted to 15 year old girls will have a massive advantage over somebody attracted primarily to 23 year old women. Not only is the former choosing a female with far more reproductive years ahead of her, the 15 year old girl is of course far more likely to be a virgin. I’m not a regular reader of Rollo Tomassi, but I can assume he is aware of the importance of the ‘mummy’s baby, daddy’s maybe’ maxim in male evolutionary sexual strategies. Therefore, evolution has produced men to prefer young pubescent girls.

As the quote says, the most optimal mate seeking strategy for men would be to find a female who has only just begun ovulating, or is soon to start ovulating. In other words not yet pregnant, but about to be so (with your sperm if you can capture her heart (or father’s blessing) first). For most of human history, females would be impregnated as soon as they were able to be. On the male side, the winning reproductive lottery ticket goes to the man who is able to attract and keep a girl who is just starting puberty (and preferably other such girls too). Everybody alive today is the genetic result of our ‘paedophile’ sex predator ancestors.

Isn’t it ironic, that this whole paedohysteria over ‘sex predators’ is about stopping men doing what is most natural to them, and most essential to the survival of the human species – mate bonding with young teens? But far more ironic, that the very reason men prefer young pubescent females is because we are not chimpanzees (or PUAs, LOL!), and want to stick around with and protect our young loves.

The David Buss SMV graph (with a reader’s annotations) :

David Buss Rollo Tomassi SMV Graph

On the Possible Larry Nassar Injustice

Larry Nassar was a man whose full-time job was to caress the sweet butt cheeks and slim legs of nubile young girls – in fact, some of the most nubile and flexible girls on the planet. Nice work if you can get it, but apparently Larry wasn’t satisfied with that, and wanted more – not just to be paid to massage lithe young bodies, but to molest them as well.

The fact that he was supposedly allowed to do this for years is suspect in itself, especially as now over 150 girls (or rather former girls) have made abuse claims. Every reader of this site will be aware how easy it is for men to be accused of inappropriate touching and the like these days. Consider then how easy it would be to accuse Larry Nassar when his job required that he put his hands all over the bodies of dozens of those girls every single day, especially after the first accusation has been made.

The final damning case against Nassar largely rested upon his conviction for child porn charges, which before the molestation trial he was already sentenced to a ridiculous 40 years for.  Those offences came to light AFTER the first girl accused him of molesting her.  As a result of that accusation, he was arrested and his computers seized, and child porn was found on them. Once this was made known, the dam burst, and the deluge of accusations began.  Nassar was now a confirmed paedophile, so all those girls must naturally be telling the truth.

Of course, nobody has any way of knowing what percentage of the population have illegal child porn material on their computers.  The UK ‘Child Exploitation’ police unit recently declared their estimate at 50,000 in the UK, which would be about 1 in 500 males (assuming most of the offenders are male).  I don’t believe that  for a moment, and you can simply use a tool such as Google Trends to see how absurdly low it is likely to be. Certainly as a figure for those who are likely criminalized by porn surfing it is a massive underestimate.  Unlike myself and my readers, most people aren’t even aware of how broadly defined child porn laws are now, and given that the most popular adult keyword (apart form terms such as ‘porn’ and ‘sex’) is ‘teen’, with search varients on it in the hundreds of thousands every day, a high percentage of those surfers will end up with illicit material on their computers, even if they weren’t searching for it.

Imagine a future where law enforcement can look into people’s minds as easily as they can today go through harddrives. They are already making crude but steady progress to this end. If we follow the logic of the Larry Nassar case, in the future a man accused of molesting a girl could be found guilty simply by police searching his brain for any past or present sexual thoughts regarding ‘children’ (i.e. anyone under 18).  Given that likely 99% of heterosexual males have had sexual thoughts regarding an under 18 at some point, yet society pretends otherwise, essentially any accusation will be proven by virtue of the suspect being a man.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that 99% of men look at child porn, even inadvertently, but it’s likely much higher than the 0.2 percent of the male population that law enforcement want you to believe. Further, it might well be the case that ‘paedophiles’ do flock to jobs such as the physiotherapist for the United States gymnastics team.  Such people will be more likely to look at child porn, but the fact that Larry Nassar might indeed be somebody who is sexually attracted to young teens and the very reason he took that job (to be close to young bodies), does not itself prove in any way he did molest 150 girls.

I wonder how much these accusations have arisen from a particularly vicious type of regret and bitterness that we’ve documented all too often here that usually comes from older woman, but in this case from young women whose whole identity and career, not just sexual identity and attractiveness, was reliant upon their formerly lithe and flexible pubescent bodies?

I wonder also how much the bitter hatred from men at Nassar, and the usual comments regarding the death penalty and torture being too good for him, and the jokes about prison rape (even inside the court room), are the result of jealousy too. A man who had one of the luckiest jobs on Earth, now destined to live in constant fear of rape and beatings until the day he dies.

Injustices regarding his guilt or innocence aside, his ridiculous sentence is an abomination. The fact that some of these ‘survivors’ actually went on to make history and win Olympic gold medals does suggest that whatever bad happened to them at the hands of Nassar, it wasn’t a life threatening trauma that they ‘survived’. The judge spoke of these girls having their childhood taken away from them, but no doubt they did little else but train gymnastics from a very young age, in many cases under pressure from the same parents who would like to see Nassar executed. Most of them likely never experienced anything remotely approaching a normal childhood.

Let’s leave this sad case with memories of Olga Korbut – ‘the darling of Munich’ – who 46 years ago charmed the world and stole the hearts of millions of men across the planet with her beauty and grace at the 1972 Olympic Games. She was 17 years old but it is widely believed she was being fed puberty delaying drugs by her Soviet trainers. I’ve always thought that ‘women’s (inevitably always won by pubescent teen girls) gymnastics’ was akin to some kind of primal virgin fertility ritual. How fitting therefore, that Larry Nassar represents a #MeToo public human sacrifice in the inverted pagan hag neoreligion of infertile feminism.

‘DailyAntiFeminist’ – Clarification and Validation

If you’ve enjoyed reading this site over the years (TEN F***ING YEARS NOW  – CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!!!) you really will love a new blog that’s appeared lately – DailyAntiFeminist.wordpress.com

When I first came across it, I took a brief glance and assumed it was a troll attempt (against me) and didn’t give it a further thought.  But I see now that it’s a genuine effort from a reader evidently of both this site and Eivind Berge’s (and Holocaust21’s excellent site).

The author of the blog – ‘Tom Grauer’ – is pretty much a younger, angrier version of myself.  And that’s something I always wanted to inspire and bring into being.  Really, after ten years of stressful travails working on this site and banging my head against the wall pushing the male sexuality cause in the MRM, I should have given birth to at least 100 Tom Grauers by now. Instead, there’s just one, a very good one mind, and at least that’s better than the situation even just a month or two ago. I feel a bit like how the great and sorely missed Angry Harry must have felt when he saw sites like mine first appearing – a mixture of pride and ruefulness in the recognition that this would be how he was doing it if he had been twenty years younger.

Well I’m an old fart now and a bit burnt out by my men’s rights involvement over the last decade. I doubt if I’ll ever go back to posting here daily or even weekly, so I’m quite happy to pass on the torch.  Obviously I do distance myself from some of the extreme statements that Grauer is publishing (to which he has given reasons for his approach here and here), if only because of the similarity in names of our blogs and inevitable confusion, but at the end of the day I don’t give a shit anymore, and I regard it as a compliment that he has chosen such a name. We need more unapologetic Tom Grauers. It annoyed the hell out of me when I had readers leaving comments on this blog with such bold statements and expecting me to take the brunt of any resulting shitstorm, but when someone like Tom is doing it on his own site and prepared to take the flak for it, then all power to him.

Tom doesn’t pussy foot around distinctions between ‘misogyny’ and ‘anti-feminism’. He holds women accountable, as they should be, and doesn’t fall for conspiracy theories that women are having their poor innocent souls twisted by a tiny cable of evil feminists.  He even talks openly about whether society needs women. I think we do need to start having this conversation, even if only because if you love women you wont want to see them go the way of the dodo.  Women are on the brink of being made sexually, reproductively, and emotionally redundant (by sex robots, virtual reality porn etc). This is occuring just at the moment when feminist driven anti-male sex hysteria is reaching an all-time high and making even the simplest interractions between men and women a risky enterprise (for the male).  Something is about to snap1, and the fact is that the Tom Grauer mentality might become the young male norm in as little as ten or twenty years unless feminism is rapidly pulled back.

Tom is actually the very model of the type of 4Chan activist that I always saw as the only possible hope for an effective pro male sexuality movement. It still staggers me that despite 4chan culture arguably being responsible for the election of Donald Trump, and despite at least 50% of the typical 4Channers being openly attracted to nubile teenage girls (or younger – with the rest being hardcore paedocrites) there still has not emerged a 4Chan anti-sex hysteria movement. Hopefully Tom will change this or at least is a harbringer of a trend that will quickly become evident in the coming years.

[1] I believe the introduction of sex robots in the next 5 to 10 years and the inevitable feminist banning of them will be that pivotal moment. I have personal experience of the anger that this will create. A few years ago I linked to a Canadian university professor’s paper outlining plans to criminalize sex robots at the United Nations.  Almost overnight I got the highest levels of traffic I’ve ever had in ten years, mainly from 4Chan and other such sites. The university professor quickly removed all references to banning sex robots from his site and has never mentioned the subject again. 4Channers have no problems being criminalized for fapping to an anime picture of an idealized bikini clad ’13 year old’ girl, but ban sex robots, and it’s the end of feminism, if not the end of women. Forget ‘weaponized autism’, if and when feminists ban sex robots, we’ll see ‘total war autism’.


FemiHag of the Year 2017 – Hannah Wallen

Hannah Wallen Fake MRA
Hannah Wallen Fake MRA

The Elizabeth Bathory FemiHag of the year award for services to the Sexual Trade Union in 2017 goes to…Hannah Wallen. Hannah is one of the most well known of the ‘Honey Badgers’ (or ‘Lovely Looking Sheilas‘) who were invited into the men’s rights movement by Paul Elam in order to ‘sex up’ the cause and give it the female rubber stamp of approval. Unfortunately, this has led to every men’s rights cause having to be met with the approval of these femiservative hags, who openly use feminist arguments, logic, and psuedo-science (and the occasional Warren Farrell retweet) to turn the MRM into a form of controlled opposition. Above all, it is these women who decide what is and what isn’t normal male sexuality, and what feminist anti-male sex laws are valid men’s rights issues. Hannah claims that any man finding 17 year old ‘children’ attractive are paedophiles, and that the age of consent should be raised to 21. The most important issue for men’s rights is the underreported problem of teenage boys being seduced by older women, a crime of such supernatural magnitude (quoting feminist scientific studies) that the boys themselves are not only robbed of their souls, they become paedophile child sex predators themselves…a bit like how werewolves and vampires operate. As Hannah believes 1 in 4 boys have supposedly been sexually abused, if my maths isn’t faulty, that means 1 in 4 men are paedophile child sex predators. Hannah likes to whip up Twitter mobs to denounce men who have been MRAs for over a decade, yet at the same time promotes anti-paedo vigilante groups that make obscenely insane false accusations against men that have led to dozens of real lives being destroyed, including many fathers and their children.

What a f**king femihag!!!

Paedocrite of the Year 2017 – Ben McCormack

What a Paedocrite!

The David Fraudtrelle Paedocrite of the year award for 2017 goes to….Ben McCormack, the Australian reporter who hounded and ‘exposed’ a popular sitcom star (Robert Hughes) as being a paedophile, while he himself was fapping away to child porn and ‘seeking help’ for his lust towards young children. A textbook example of hardcore paedocrisy that even previous winners of this ignoble award – such as David Futrelle – would tip their hat to.

Ben McCormack walks free over child porn charges

Ben McCormack questions disgraced actor Robert Hughes

What a f**king paedocrite!!!

Other contenders in 2017 included the alt-right, typified by self-styled leader and public bumhole engineer Milo Yiannopoulos. It must take a special kind of paedocrite to know exactly how insane and injust paedohysteria and age of consent laws are, be publicly ‘caught’ admitting to this, and yet thinking you can put yourself back among the regular squares (or homo squares at least) by accusing every political opponent whose ever gone near a teenager of being a pedo nonce. A special mention goes to the creepy #AnimeRight who openly combine ultra-conservatism with a fetish for perky breasted big eyed 13 year old girls – anime representations mind, so it has nothing to do with paedophilia, and there’s nothing inconsistant with such freaks constantly accusing everybody else on Twitter of being paedophiles or supporting the death penalty for all child porn offenders.

The AnimeRight

What a f**king paedocrite!!!

Six time winner and master of paedocrisy David Futrelle was of course, as ever, in contention for the award this year. I don’t know why, because I haven’t looked at his blog for about 2 years now, but a paedocrite can never change its spots. I’m just surprised that after months of #MeToo nobody has yet come forward to make any revelations of hands on tranny breasts at a #ManboobzMeetup.

What a f**king paedocrite!!!

Previous winners of the David Fraudtrelle Paedocrite of the Year Award :

2008 : David Futrelle
2009 : David Futrelle
2010 : David Futrelle
2011 : David Futrelle
2012 : David Futrelle
2013 : David Futrelle
2014 : Lena Dunham
2015 : Simon Danczuk
2016 : Stinson Hunter/Kieran Parsons

What a f**king paedocrite!!!

Why is there still no pro male sexuality movement?

The invention of the pill changed the sexual landscape forever, and fifty years later, society is still coming to terms with it and working out a new sexual moral code. Or more accurately, women have been working out how to continue justifying and protecting their maladaptive needs, and constrain male sexuality, in a new sexual rulebook enforced upon society and men through feminism (and femiservatism).

The pill, as well as other technological ‘advances’ such as abortion on demand, effectively separated sex from reproduction for the first time in tens of thousands of years of human existance. It ought to have, and for a brief time did, largely separate sex from stifling morality. The pill sexually liberated men far more than it did women, and certainly older women (the type of women which tends to have political power). The problem for men is that in the decades since, whilst feminism has exploded in its Second and Third Waves as a response to the new sexual realities, and as a brutal counterrevolution to the sexual revolution, there has been a near complete lack of male reply.

The pill enabled men to have sex with women without consequence. Sexual morality for thousands of years had been based upon the need to compel men (and the community) to support impregnated women. In fact, Western Civilization today is built upon the Christian myth of the virgin Mary and her baby Jesus, a myth we celebrate each year at this time by giving gifts, mirroring the gifts (resources) given to Mary and the fatherless newborn child Jesus. The pill changed all this. It didn’t liberate women, because women’s psychology didn’t change. The philosopher Schopenhauer wrote that after sex, a woman wants to embrace and hold her man, the man just wants to go to sleep (no doubt, to dream of sex with other young fertile women). Men no longer had to be held accountable for the sex act, as a woman was no longer left potentially high and dry, holding a baby. Men thought the sex war had ended, and gleefully left the battlefield with their cocks in their hands. In fact, the war was about to take on an ever greater brutality, with only one side fighting it.

In terms of political movements comparable to feminism, men have thus far come up with the Men’s Rights Movement and MGTOW, and more broadly the Manosphere, and even more broadly I guess, the alt-right.

The men’s rights movement had promising beginnings, with even its very founder – the Victorian thinker Ernest Belfort Bax – being a free love advocate, railing in his extensive writings against such things as feminist definitions of sexual assault, and the raising of the age of consent (their ‘favourite krank’ as he put it). This continued into the modern age when, for the first time, the sexual upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s were analyzed from the point of view of men, by ‘men’s rights’ authors such as David Thomas, Neil Lyndon, and Lionel Tiger, and the online MRM founder Angry Harry. The latter three, certainly, recognized the pill as fundamentally changing the balance of power between the sexes, and all of these early MRAs were positive in their view of male sexuality that had been diminished by the feminist response to the sexual revolution (and all of them recognized intuitively that feminism was responding to the sexual revolution of the 60’s that had liberated men more than women, not creating it as per the standard narrative).

Since then, as we have documented here recently, the MRM has turned into a curious mirror of victimhood feminism, not merely in the sense of being a male version of feminism, but actually validating feminist sexual morality and demanding ‘a piece of the pie’ in terms of shared and equal victimhood in a regrettably free sexual marketplace.

The MGTOW appears on the surface more promising. At least MGTOWs, who reject women completely, aren’t likely to suffer the fate of the MRM in being infected and taken over by female ‘sympathetic’ parasites such as the ‘Honey Badgers’. Unlike MRAs, MGTOWs do also propose a sexual strategy in response to the changed sexual universe men and women now inhabit. Go your own way and leave women behind. However, there are two major problems with the MGTOW approach. Firstly, it seems more like an admission of defeat on the part of men, rather than a new battle tactic in response to the changed formations of the enemy (feminism). If men can no longer fight on the sexual battlefield, it’s time to leave it. Secondly, MGTOWs tend to be a little short on details of how men, especially young horny men, are actually supposed to lead a sexually fulfilling life in the absence of women and girls. They don’t tend to talk about porn much, and certainly don’t seem to rage against the ever increasing criminalization of porn. Maybe they think we should just castrate ourselves, or think about puppies, or Margaret Thatcher, every time a sexual thought enters our head? The one exception to this rule is sex robots. MGTOWs like to talk about sex robots..A LOT! If you subscribe to any of the leading MGTOWs or even the ones with a dozen subscribers, every other video now is about sex robots and how sexbots will lead to the MGTOW sextopia. And fair play to them, they do appear to recognize that feminists such as Kathleen Richardson are trying desperately hard to ban sex robots (for obvious reasons).

A third issue with MGTOWs is that it all seems to be a little too much like the feminist modus operandi – older, less sexually valuable individuals telling their younger more sexually valuable (and viable) rivals that sex is wicked, that it will lead to harm, that we’re only telling you this to protect you etc. Not that I believe that MGTOWs are hypocrites or actively trying to stop young people having sex out of bitterness and rivalry, as femihags are doing, but let’s just say it’s easy to be an MGTOW when you’re an old unattractive fart like me who women, and especially young hotties, don’t want anymore.

The Manosphere and the ‘alt-right’ have pretty much gone the same way as the MRM – heavily influenced by ‘sympathetic’ and invariably conservative women (the alt-right are currently having this battle with ‘tradhots’ – at least, unlike MRAs who are supposed to actually be a specifically MEN’S movement, the alt-rightists like RooshV recognize the danger of letting women speak for them).

Some readers may remember a time when Ferdinand Bardemu, the webmaster of InMalaFide and one of the founders of the Mansophere, would heavily promote this site on his weekly link dump (and I’m eternally grateful to old Ferd). Then Ferdinand Bardemu turned into Matt Forney, an ultra-traditionalist who wanted a piece of the growing alt-right action, and who recognized that being sympathetic to such taboo issues as the age of consent would be near suicide, as Milo later discovered.

Heartiste/Roissy, another founder of the Mansophere, also bravely and explicitly spoke up on issues such as paedohysteria and the age of consent, and is still bravely doing so, even if tempered a little (30 year old men dating late teens ‘icky’???).

The alt-right was indeed very promising as a possible pro male sexuality movement. After all, it has an openly gay Englishman who boasts of sucking black cocks as its nominal head. It grew as a young conservative male’s alternative to traditional mainstream establishment Conservatism/Republicism – recognizing the bullshit of the Left as regards transgender rights and anti-male sexuality feminism, and seeking some form of middle-ground between the wisdom of traditionalism and the realities of the changed post-pill sexual landscape for men. Finally, a possible men’s movement that sought to create a genuine new male sexual morality unconstrained by outdated female orientated traditionalism whilst sticking two fingers up at feminism and so called ‘progressivism’. Sadly, as you would expect from an American dominated conservative movement, it has descended back into traditionalism and now alt-righters spend most of their time accusing Democrats and left-wingers of being ‘paedophiles’, apparently so brain dead that it came as a genuine surprise when their own sort – such as Roy Moore – inevitably started facing the same accusations.

American politics is now conducted akin to the thinking of World War One generals. A Republican will consider that if the last man in the USA not imprisoned for paedophilia or sex crimes is a Republican supporter, then that will mean that the Republicans have won.

And finally, a brief word on PUAs. PUAs again promised to bring something new to the table. A new sexual strategy in the new sexual landscape was finally being promoted by men for men. Further, a lot of the leading PUAs, such as our old friend Krauser PUA, were political and anti-feminist. In the end, it brought nothing. PUAs didn’t want to actively fight feminists because all this ‘red pill’ shit would ‘lower their frame’ and threaten to reduce their 1 in 100 lay ratios to something as beta as 1 in 125. Never mind that one day very soon talking to women in the street will be illegal, and it in fact might be in the UK by the end of next year). Most of these PUAs are so clueless and unaware of anything but their relentless pursuit of HB6 pussy that they will actually be non-plussed when they run up to a woman from behind with the ‘Yad stop’ and have their scripted negging routine rudely interrupted by the hand of a copper on their shoulder. Further, when PUAs are aware and politicized, they are inevitably traditionalist, and somehow perform mental gymnastics to accommodate this ultra-traditionalism with a life devoted to trying to pump and dump conservative teenage virgins in Eastern Europe.

So MRAs, MGTOWs, Alt-Righters and PUAs have all disappointed and we still await a movement by men and for men that actually puts forward a positive sexual path for all men in an era when sex and reproduction (and hence rationally speaking sex and morality) have and increasingly will be divorced, and that is furthermore prepared to fight for it.

Morrissey Puts the MRAs to Shame

The iconic former lead singer with 80’s band ‘The Smiths’ – Morrissey – has had the balls to say things that are simply taboo for so called ‘men’s rights activists’ these days. In an interview with a German news magazine, he defended both Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, as well as speaking out on sex with minors.

Morrissey has attracted controversy after defending Kevin Spacey over allegations of sexual abuse.
He said the star had been “attacked unnecessarily”, adding it was “ridiculous” that Spacey was being erased from an upcoming film.
The former Smiths singer also argued that definitions of harassment and assault have become too broad.
“Anyone who ever said ‘I like you’ to someone else is suddenly being charged with sexual harassment,” he said

He then goes on to attack the present climate on sex with minors, stating the obvious fact that musicians have always had sex with underage groupies, and asking if we will end up jailing everybody (most ‘MRAs’ would apparently be happy with every man being jailed for ‘paedophilia’ so long as a few cougar teachers are put in prison with them).

Morrissey added that many famous musicians had slept with fans who were under the age of consent.
“Throughout the history of music and rock ‘n’ roll there have been musicians who slept with their groupies,” he said, while clarifying that he was not one of them.
“If you go through history, almost everyone is guilty of sleeping with minors. Why not throw everyone in jail right away?



If there is a huge backlash against Morrissey’s comments on underage sex, we can only hope that unlike the gay leader of the alt-right – Milo Yiannopoulos – he doesn’t lose control of his bowels and instead stands firm.

The paedohysteria aspect of the witchhunts sparked by the Harvey Weinstein scandal may mark a turning point in that for the first time, feminists appear to be targeting homosexual men and, encouragingly, it seems that a few prominent gay men are fighting back on behalf of their condemned brothers. As I’ve repeatedly argued here over the last ten years, the homosexual/feminist alliance was a pact of opportunism that will never survive in the long run. Homosexuals wanted liberation, feminists wanted to paint a picture of ‘tolerance’ while they embarked upon a brutal assault on normal male sexuality. But the elephant in the room was always homosexual pederastry. There had to be an underlying tacit assumption on the part of both parties, with both sides agreeing to forget about pederastry and pretend that homosexuality has nothing to do with the sexual attraction to teenagers. Homosexuals in effect sold their soul to the devil in return for feminist protection. Now that feminist witchhunts are targetting prominent gay men for fondles with fresh chicken decades ago, the feminist/homosexual alliance – ‘a union as uneasy in its fundamentals as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact‘ – will be strained like never before.

In an ironic way, the fake MRAs of A Voice for Men and the Honey Badgers such as Hannah Wallen may inadvertently speed this along. With their obsession with forcing sexual victimhood upon boys and validating feminist age of consent laws, they are inevitably reawakening latent mob persecution of the homosexual. I once wrote an article here attacking their absurd support for the claim that ‘1 in 6 boys has been sexually abused’, pointing out the obvious fact that not only does it imply that a huge percentage of men are paedophile child sex abusers, it entails that the majority of homosexual men are active paedophile child molestors.

Homosexuals from Socrates to Alan Turing, and indeed Mozza himself, were enamoured with the beauty of boys. Homosexuality is male sexuality free from the constraints of chimpanzee female monogamy, or at least it was for thousands of years until, ironically, homosexuality was ‘legalized’ by the feminist/gay lib pact. Without the female need to be protected and provided for by one ‘alpha male’, and without the reproductive aspect of the sex act, male heterosexuals would behave just like homosexuals did throughout history until their so called ‘liberation’. It would all be about chasing young tail. And in fact, that’s how heterosexual men, or at least those with power and status, did behave in the 60’s and 70’s era. Now feminists are forcing them to pay the price, but whether by design or by simply ‘collateral damage’, so are homosexual men, and this could be the game changer.

All the streets are crammed with things
Eager to be held
I know what hands are for
And I’d like to help myself
You ask me the time
But I sense something more
And I would like to give
What I think you’re asking for
You handsome devil
Oh, you handsome devil
Let me get my hands
On your mammary glands
And let me get your head
On the conjugal bed
I say, I say, I say
I crack the whip
And you skip
But you deserve it
You deserve it, deserve it, deserve it
A boy in the bush
Is worth two in the hand
I think I can help you get through your exams
Oh, you handsome devil
Oh, let me get my hands
On your mammary glands
And let me get your head
On the conjugal bed
I say, I say, I say
I crack the whip
And you skip
But you deserve it
You deserve it, deserve it, deserve it

**UPDATE – it just occurred to me that there are very important parallels between the gay liberation movement and the men’s rights movement. In the early days of gay rights, it was taken as granted that what was being fought for was liberation of the ‘pederast’. In fact, I’m not sure that the term ‘homosexual’ was even used before the 1960’s. As the movement grew stronger, it was infiltrated by ‘sympathetic feminists’. Very soon, ‘homosexuals’, who were simply delighted to have such powerful allies, allowed themselves to be distanced from the ‘pederasts’ who, of course, had ‘nothing to do with homosexuality’. Fifty years later, we’re seeing the end results. Famous gay men being ‘outed’ amidst feminist anti-male witchhunts as child abusers for alleged fumbles with teenage boys decades ago. At the same time, supposed ‘victories’ for gay rights such as ‘gay marriage’ simply validate female monogamy and the female self-interested system of sexual ethics.

Similarly, feminist age of consent laws and the demonization of normal male sexual attraction to teenagers was always part of men’s rights, as it obviously should be. However, as the movement grew, leading individuals such as Paul Elam allowed the infiltration of ‘sympathetic women’ (of course, claiming to be actually ‘anti-feminist (although Paul Elam did actually once flirt with reaching out to overt feminists and even claimed to be a feminist himself)). Very soon, weak imbeciles and useful idiots such as Elam were so happy at winning persuasive female support (and finding donations were going up, as well as work as therapists for ‘sexually abused men’) they readily agreed to denounce any MRAs who continued to speak out on paedohysteria or the age of consent. The feminist age of consent now has ‘nothing to do with men’s rights or anti-feminism’. In fact, the feminist age of consent should be higher because boys need protecting from gay men cougars! Of course, any intelligent reader and real MRA can see what the end results will be for men.

Scarecrow is Back!!

Our old friend Scarecrow has returned to blogging, and we can all be thankful for that. Although he’s never been keen on the label of ‘MRA’ (and who can blame him when the likes of Elam and the Hideous Honey Badgers have defiled the term?), he certainly is – like myself, Eivind Berge, and Rookh (‘Anglo-Bitch’) – one of the last true anti-feminists. And not only is he back, he’s back with an even harder and more unapologetic edge! Hehe. Here’s an example of a recent post.


An Apology for my Views on Harvey Weinstein

It has been brought to my attention that some people are upset with my last post. Specifically, my attitude towards Harvey Weinstein’s alleged victims.

Well, fuck off.

I will clarify now.

I do not give a shit what happens to any narcissistic sexual despots.

To be clear, if any of them were to catch on fire, I would laugh.

If they were drawn and quartered, I’d laugh.

These are the same vile cunts who askew me because I voted for a white man.

These people like the Vegas shooter, because he killed people they think are undesirable.

Now, I understand that there are fates worse than having sex with Harvey Weinstein – like saying something nice to a self-purported nice guy, or knowing that some man within 50 feet of you is a white Christian Heterosexual male and voted for Trump, but that is neither there or here.

What matters is, I don’t give a fuck what happens to some narcissistic sexual despots.

I just regret I don’t get to watch them suffer on a regular basis.

Sorry if I did not make that clear enough.

Neil Lyndon on Harvey Weinstein

It was Neil Lyndon who started me on my Men’s Rights path over two decades ago. Yes, he was the one responsible, LOL. I picked up his classic ‘No More Sex War’ from my university book market when I was a student in the mid 90’s. I actually did him a disservice here recently by claiming that the David Thomas book ‘Not Guilty:In Defence of Men’ (another great work) was the first men’s rights publication of the modern era. Actually, Neil Lyndon’s book came first, in 1992 – a year before the David Thomas work.

Although ‘No More Sex War’ doesn’t cover paedohysteria to the extent that the Thomas work did, he does discuss at a fair bit of length the satanic abuse panics of the 80s/90s that were the forerunner of today’s climate, and it’s clear that he puts the blame on radical anti-male feminism. And yesterday, he showed he still writes with as much sharpness as 25 years ago in an article for the Telegraph on the Harvey Weinstein affair. Not only that, it’s clear that ‘the first modern MRA’ would not find a home in the contemporary Honey Badger WoMen’s Human Rights Movement.


There are quite a few classic quotes to be relished from the article, but I’ll just content myself with highlighting a couple, both of which would certainly find a home amongst the writings and thoughts of this blog :

The curious exclusion of predatory homosexuality in the charge sheet against so-called “toxic masculinity” stems, in part, from the long-standing alliance between the women’s and the gay movements – a union as uneasy in its fundamentals as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin’s communists and Hitler’s Nazis.

And this one I’m delivering in a hand written note to Hannah Wallen and the Hideous Honey Badgers :

It can even happen that pretty young men may be preyed upon by more powerful women – as I was happy to experience when a stunningly attractive female member of staff at a school I attended took a shine to me. For that abuse of power and office, she would certainly have been sacked and drummed out of the teaching profession; but for the whole of my life ever since, I have remembered the outrage with undying affection and my only regret today is that there wasn’t a lot more of it.

Neil Lyndon – the man who kickstarted the modern men’s rights movement, even before Angry Harry.

Not a real MRA Hannah?

*** I submitted the link to the original Telegraph article to Reddit.com/r/mensrights yesterday and it was promptly deleted by Honey Badger moderator ‘TyphonBlue’. What an utter joke the modern men’s rights movement has become.

Anti-Feminist Hero Chris Brand Has Passed Away

Another anti-feminist hero has passed away, I sadly learnt yesterday. Chris Brand, the former professor of psychology at Edinburgh university, and whose writings from his political blog (which might be the oldest online) I re-posted here many times, died from an apparent infection whilst in hospital earlier this year.

Chris Brand AntiFeministChris Brand was one of the leading voices against feminist political correctness as regards differences between the sexes, race, immigration, and paedohysteria (he is actually the person who coined that term). Even more than Angry Harry, he is the individual who inspired me to start this website. Brand was a leading academic and professor at Edinburgh university when he was sacked from his post for his politically incorrect pronouncments which had become too much for the left-wing Cultural Marxist dominated staff at the university. In particular, he had made the claim that consensual sex between an above average intelligent teenager and an older person would result in no harm to the youngster. This was in the context of his support for a Scandinavian Nobel Prize winner who had been imprisoned for ‘sexually abusing’ teens. As well as this, he had become increasingly controversial in his publicizing of the idea that differences in intelligence were largely genetic, and that this explained differences in IQ between races.

It was in response to his dismissal at Edinburgh University, in the late 1990’s, that Chris Brand started publishing a ‘diary’ online of his persecution for ‘politically incorrect’ thoughts. Arguably, it should be preservered not only for the significance and acumen of its political arguments and observations, but because it might well have been the very first political ‘blog’ online.



Chris Brand died aged 73 after a long and fearless intellectual life. He leaves behind a much younger and very good looking Asian wife. Chris Brand never called himself an ‘MRA’ and I’m not sure what he thought of the men’s rights movement, but he was certainly aware of this blog and he was most certainly more of an MRA than the fakes and charlatans who have taken over the movement in the last several years. Another true anti-feminist is gone and we can only hope that the likes of him and Angry Harry will continue to inspire others to follow in their footsteps, despite the current climate.

For a taste of just how politically incorrect he was on the subject of paedohysteria, and how distant he was from the feminist ‘Honey Badger’ fake MRAs that infiltrate and infest our movement today, here is a sample of his writings from 2014.


In days of violent paedohysteria, celebrities were understandably reluctant to tell the public that they themselves had been the perfectly successful survivors of child sex with kindly adults. But ex-President multi-millionaire and heart-throb Bill Clinton had the job done for him by his wife. As Hillary Clinton readied herself to run for the White House in 2016, a Pullitzer prize-winning journaliste decided to back Hillary’s social-environmentalist sob story of how her hubby had been led astray by ably head-giving Monica Lewinsky.

Apparently Bill had been regularly ‘abused’ by his mother and thus felt a need to seek for his abuser even in the arms of the most unsuitable women…. (DailyTelegraph, 25 vii).

{It was, of course, not unheard of or abnormal for mothers of the past to soothe their children with judicious masturbation; but what the Clintons would make of this story getting out remained to be seen. Bill himself had always been most fond of his mother, writing to her daily to keep her in touch with his considerable achievements.}

Similarly contravening paedohysteria, a Manchester crown court judge distinguished himself by falling asleep during the first day of evidence in a witch-hunt of ‘child abuse.’ The trial had thus to be abandoned and a new performance re-scheduled at the cost of £10K to taxpayers.

So shocking to paedo-hounders was the judge’s boredom that the story even got reported on BBC World Service news (26 vii, 09:00). {I would need to learn from this, since I myself was summoned for high court jury service in E’b*gger – my excuse that I had limited understanding of Glaswegian not having worked. I would have to stay awake, perhaps resting my head on my NHS-supplied walking stick.}


Hannah Wallen Now Promoting Satanic Abuse False Accusation Group

Hannah Wallen MRA Honey Badger
Fake ‘MRA’ Hannah Wallen –
Femiservative infiltrator of Angry Harry’s MRM

Fake ‘MRA’ and feminist ‘Honey Badger’ Hannah Wallen is now promoting an ‘anti-paedo’ Twitter vigilante group that was behind the infamous Hampstead ‘satanic abuse’ hysteria of 2015 – something that has ruined the lives of dozens of London schoolchildren, their parents and their teachers, and that was started by false accusations made by an ‘evil ex-wife’.

Police are hunting the “evil” mother who forced her young children to make claims to social services and in online videos that their father was the leader of a satanic paedophile cult.

Ella Draper is now being investigated by a specialist police team after the 42-year-old, pictured swanning in a cannabis field, tortured her children by making them make the false claims in partnership with her lover Abraham Christie.

The couple, from Hampstead, north west London, made the false claims against various members of the local community – including her former husband and actor Ricky Dearman.

Draper, who is believed to have fled abroad, is wanted for questioning by police over false allegations that continue to be made in online videos and articles, sparking fears of vigilante attacks.

A judge last week branded her claims that her two children’s father was leading a 100-strong Satanic paedophile ring based at Christ Church Primary School in Hampstead as “utter nonsense”.

She ruled that the youngsters’ “fantasy” accounts of abuse stemmed from “relentless emotional and psychological pressure” by Draper and Christie who beat them into concocting stories.


#opdeatheaters, a Twitter vigilante group that exists to expose supposed endemic paedophile satanic worship in the establishment, quickly latched on to the claims and not only promoted the false accusations online – that dozens of children in Hampstead, a leafy middle-class borough of London, were being sexually abused and even sacrificed in Satanic orgies by their teachers and parents – but outrageously published the names and addresses of the (real) children alleged to be victims, along with their innocent fathers and teachers. Of course, as the Internet never forgets, the names and personal details of these real children, and their falsely accused innocent ‘abusers’, are still likely online, waiting to be discovered and used for whatever ends by real hardcore paedophiles that no doubt most of these ‘vigilantes’ themselves in fact are*.

When the whole thing was exposed as a hoax created by the child abusing ex-wife, #opdeatheaters cowardly denied that they had been behind the publishing of the children’s details, presumably wrongly fearing that law enforcement in the USA or the UK might actually do their job and arrest some of them for endangering and harming children. But as far as I know, and utterly bizarrely, none of these crazed paedocrite vigilantes were ever arrested.


Those same crazy vigilantes are now promoting the idea that Hollywood is filled with Jewish paedophile Satan worshippers sacrificing and raping young trafficked children. And this is the point at which these false accusers of men officially become men’s rights allies according to feminist Hannah Wallen. Instead of making some nuanced argument regarding witchhunts, the demonization of male sexuality and ordinary flirting, the principle of innocent until proven guilty in court etc, with regard to the ongoing public lynching of Harvey Weinstein, Hannah Wallen sees it as an opportunity to fan the flames of the most outrageous paedohysteria. Apparently disappointed that only one ‘child’ of 17 has so far made any suggestion that Weinstein might be a ‘paedophile’, Wallen has taken the opportunity to paint all men as suspected secret Satanic worshipping paedophile child rapists being protected by the establishment.

This is what the men’s rights movement of Angry Harry has been reduced to by Paul Elam’s ‘Honey Badgers’. Infiltrated and now led by grotesque middle-aged femiservative women, promoting Satanic child abuse hysteria straight from the middle-ages, and joining forces with crazed paedophile child abusing ‘vigilantes’ to do so.

*A particularly disturbing footnote in regard to Hannah Wallen’s support of a lunatic vigilante group that published the personal details online of children wrongly alleged to be ‘satanic sex abuse victims’, is that she herself – in her supposed ‘men’s rights activism’ and using feminist junk science – has promoted the ‘vampire’ myth that (male) victims of paedophiles themselves become paedophiles as adults :


Multiple sources indicate that a history of sexual exploitation by females during youth is a significant risk factor for later perpetration of sex crimes by men. In addition to the studies mentioned in the linked article, the same connection is also reported here and here. The Holms and Slap review also noted that sexually abused males were 4.4 times more likely to have forced someone into sexual contact than nonabused males. Although these various sources contain a variety discussions on the characteristics of sex offenders and their implications, that risk factor is a common thread in all of them.

Are Most MRAs Who Support Feminist ‘Child Sex’ Abuse Laws Paedophiles?

Hannah Wallen MRA Honey Badger
Hannah Wallen, male rape advocate – ‘Any man finding 17 year old girls attractive should be anally raped’

I recently here provided evidence that resistance to feminist inflated and absurd ‘child sex abuse’ laws has always been part of the men’s rights movement. Looking at this in an unbiased and cool headed way, this should be so natural and obvious that it requires no further explanation. Feminist laws on ‘paedophilia’, ‘child porn’, and the age of consent, obviously target men, lead to millions of men being imprisoned, fearing imprisonment, shamed, or taking their own lives. Such feminist laws also clearly further feminist self-interest, in removing sexual competition and serving to demonize men and male sexuality. MRAs can see this perfectly when it comes to feminist laws against, definitions of, and opposition to (adult) rape, sex bots, MGTOW culture, prostitution etc, yet bizarrely assume that feminists are acting from noble selfless motives when it comes to their incessant ‘child protection’ laws.

Keeping silent on feminist age of consent and ‘child sex abuse’ laws is a complete contradiction for somebody identifying as a ‘men’s rights activist’. It is also wildly inconsistent with the promotion of other causes as leading men’s rights issues. For example, I have pointed out that age of consent laws (including ‘child porn’ and the rest) lead to the anal rapes in prison cells of thousands if not tens of thousands of men in the USA alone. This number is likely 100 times more than the amount of men ‘raped’ by women. We know it is more than the total number of women that are raped in the USA, and MRAs sometimes have pointed this out (and as being the real ‘rape culture’ in the USA). But the cause of this prison rape epidemic – the million American men on the sex offender’s register for breaking feminist sex laws, is completely off topic aside from the issue of false accusations.  Hannah Wallen and Paul Elam even openly declare their support for millions more men to be potentially raped in prison through the raising of the age of consent even beyond their current high ages. And yet ‘male rape’ is supposedly one of the leading men’s rights issues, and in fact for the ‘Honey Badgers’ and Paul Elam, it seems to be the leading issue by far.

Similarly, it is almost impossible to read the news for a week without learning of some guy facing trial for ‘child porn’ offences or a historical ‘child sex’ offence committing suicide. In other words, men are killing themselves every day because of feminist child sex laws that were either introduced in the last 20 years or whose punishments have been raised by feminist lobbying in the last 20 years. This likely explains the rise in the male suicide rate over the last twenty years almost completely, something which is often held by MRAs to be the leading men’s rights issue., just as it almost completely explains the overcrowding in UK prisons. Yet not only is the likely cause of the rise in the male suicide rate – feminist child sex laws – completely ignored by other MRAs, those of us who do discuss it are denounced by the rest as ‘pedo apologists’!

The biggest irony and contradiction is that as feminist laws and definitions of paedophilia and child sex abuse become ever more absurd and draconian, and harm more and more millions of ordinary men, the less MRAs are willing to see these things as valid men’s rights issues, and the more willing they are to violently denounce the few MRAs such as myself and Eivind Berge as ‘pedo acceptance advocates’ for even raising these issues.


Can there be any explanation other than the obvious one – that these MRAs are simply covering their own backs and fearful that they could be exposed to internet monitoring etc which would put them in danger of prosecution? Perhaps young MRAs who have been brought up since birth under paedohysteria cannot even summon the conceptual framework to see the feminist hand behind these laws, they have been so brainwashed. Older MRAs certainly don’t have this excuse and must be able to remember a time before the current hysteria, when cool heads did debate these issues, before feminist driven hysteria made it impossible, as it has also only to a lesser extent, in the very same time frame, made the topics of rape, sexual harassment, domestic abuse very difficult to talk about rationally and publicly (as an anti-feminist).

I also should make clear that I don’t think for a moment that Paul Elam is a ‘pedo’, or at least no more than any normal man is, and would be certainly careful not to be breaking any feminist laws. He likely has the IQ to realize that a man of his ‘infamy’ is likely to be having his every move online and offline monitored, just as myself and Eivind Berge no doubt are, and have been for a number of years. In his case, a charitable excuse would be that as a high profile public MRA, he understandably doesn’t want to be branded a ‘paedophile apologist’, altough a more likely reason is his selfish interest in validating the feminist sex abuse industry which he personally is profiting from. No, what I’m talking about is the largely anonymous MRAs on Twitter and the like who so violently denounce myself and Eivind Berge as being ‘paedo apologists’ (and worse) whilst often themselves choosing anime avatars featuring skimpily dressed idealized pre-pubescent girls.

One argument frequently made is that such topics simply have to be off limits at least for now, while the Men’s Rights Movement is still establishing itself. This might have been valid several years ago, and I’ll hold my hands up and say that sometimes I haven’t been very tactful in approaching these matters (unlike, for example, Angry Harry). Some of my fellow MRAs who shared my views, were even less tactful, such as ‘Jay Hammers’. But this argument doesn’t hold water anymore now that the MRM has pretty much gone mainstream and is clearly here to stay. Further, that the ‘leader’ of the MRM during this time – Paul Elam – himself used similar inflammatory tactics to myself in order to wake men up from their White Knight slumber, including penning articles with titles such as ‘Bash a Bitch Week’, or making statements that a male member of a jury should NEVER believe a female rape victim. Would it really be so much more damaging to the Men’s Rights Movement, if Paul Elam had penned the occasional article attacking feminist ‘child porn’ laws that lead to men being imprisoned for looking at pictures of women in bikinis with small breasts etc.?

Compare with feminists and their complete lack of reluctance to openly speak against ‘child protection’ laws if they harm women’s interests – namely, the subject of abortion.

Jessica Valenti and millions of feminists across the world can openly proclaim the right to kill the vulnerable children growing inside of them and completely dependent upon them, as easily as swallowing candy, as a leading women’s rights issue.

On the other hand, if an MRA proffers the opinion that it is wrong for men to be imprisoned under feminist laws for messaging a 17 year old ‘girl’ and telling her she is hot, then such MRAs are condemned by the majority of their brothers as ‘pedo acceptance advocates’.

We might also consider whether the men’s rights movement has actively been infiltrated by paedophiles – that is, hardcore paedocrites, especially homosexual pederasts? We know that the MRM has certainly been infiltrated by feminists calling themselves the Honey Badgers, seeking to validate feminist sex abuse laws with the help of useful idiots like Paul Elam’. Sadistic, violent homosexual paedophiles may have been attracted by the MHRA/Honey Badger obsession with the rape of boys, as well as the David Futrelle Salo scandal, like flies to a shit smeared honey pot. It has to be noted that a number of high profile homosexual MHRAs have in the past few years began work as therapists for ‘abused boys’ (boys supposedly sexually abused and raped by women). One such MHRA who personally accused myself of being a paedophile, has even tried to set up a ‘men’s rights religion’ in Thailand, inviting local impoverished males of all ages to join him in some kind of communal woman free existence.

Hannah Wallen Feminist MRA
Hannah Wallen – Feminists don’t need feminism. Not when they have the ‘Men’s Rights Movement’ to validate feminist sex laws

I often quote the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in relation to the tactics a genuine MRA should pursue if he has real concerns that these issues are indeed too inflammatory in the current climate. ‘That which we cannot speak of, we must remain silent on’. If you call yourself an MRA, and yet can’t even manage that, and have to vehemently condemn and make accusations against those brave enough to speak out and who have nothing to hide….well, it’s a little too obvious mate.

‘Take him instead of me..He’s the one you want…he’s the thought criminal..’ (1984)

The History of Feminist ‘Child Sex Abuse’ Laws in the MRM

It is rather odd in the extreme, that the more absurd and draconian feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws and punishments become, the less the Men’s Rights Movement is willing to consider them as men’s rights issues. 100 years ago, and men who had sex with 14 year old girls were only prosecuted if the girl claimed she had been ‘seduced’. Yet Ernest Belfort Bax – the first MRA in history – felt this was enough to make it a serious men’s rights issue. 25 years ago, and only men who had sex with pre-pubescent girls had the book thrown at them by the legal system, and yet David Thomas – the first modern men’s rights author – felt this was enough to devote almost an entire chapter to in his classic men’s rights work ‘Not Guilty : The Case In Defence of Men’. 15 years ago, and punishments for looking at illicit child porn images were typically only a caution or a few months in prison, whereas now people are being sent down for years and then put on the sex offender’s register for life. Yet Angry Harry – the founder of the online men’s rights movement – still felt it important to raise the issue of such feminist ‘thought crimes’ as a men’s rights issue.

Contents :

1 – Ernest Belfort Bax
2 – David Thomas
3 – Angry Harry
4 – After Harry –
Paul Elam and Hannah Wallen

ernest belfort baxErnest Belfort Bax is recognized as the first ‘MRA’ in history.  Writing in Edwardian and Victorian England, the prolific Bax was a philosopher, socialist, literary critic, and free love advocate, as well as the first writer to discuss at length discrimination against men by an increasingly feminist society.

In a short essay entitled ‘The Monstrous Regiment of Womanhood‘ – he expounds an argument that modern MRAs, and especially the Honey Badgers, would certainly recognize :

But the most atrocious instances of sex-privilege occur in
connection with the Criminal Law Amendment Act
of 1885. Whilst the abduction of a girl under
eighteen, or the seduction of one under sixteen,
involves the man concerned in serious penalties, the
girl or the woman gets off scot free, and this even
though she may have been the inciting party. This
is carried to the extent that a young boy of fourteen
may be himself induced to commit a sexual offence
by a girl just under sixteen — that is to say, nearly
two years his senior — and he can be sentenced to
imprisonment, followed by several years in a re-
formatory, whilst the law holds the inciting girl
absolutely guiltless. The villainy of such an enact-
ment is unparalleled, more particularly when one
considers that a girl approaching sixteen is often
practically a woman, whilst a boy of fourteen is
seldom more than a child.

However, it is clear from other writings of Bax, that his objection to the feminist age of consent was not merely its discriminatory application in relation to the double standard. Like most anti-feminists of the time, he regarded the feminist raising of the age of consent as a blackmailer’s charter. For example in another essay of 1908 entitled ‘Ernest Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics’, he writes :

That the present “Votes for Women” movement is only a phase of the anti-man crusade which Feminism has been carrying on for nigh two generations past with the aid of the Press, is shown, not only by the persistent efforts to represent “ man-made laws “ as unjust to women, but by the incidental remarks of Suffragette leaders in which the sex animus is shown, no concealment being made of the intention to use the suffrage for rivetting on man the chains of legalised female oppression. For example, Mrs. Pankhurst recently represented one of the functions of emancipated “Womanhood” to be the handing over of the luckless male to the Female blackmailer by raising the “age of consent” above sixteen!! The allusion made at the same time to the “daughters of the working class “ is a piece of demagogy too thin to deceive anyone as to the venomous sex-spite animating this outrageous proposal.

Elsewhere, in the essay ‘Problems of Man, Mind and Morals’, he mocks the feminist obsession with raising the age of consent, and points out the absurdity involved in simultaneously claiming that teenage girls need protecting from the sexual advances of men AND that girls are mature enough to be given the vote :

If there is one demand which is popular with the Feminists, it is for raising the age of consent from sixteen to eighteen or twenty-one years,at which latter age, presumably, the right to the Franchise, if conceded, would come into operation. They are therefore evidently of opinion that the woman who has only just ceased to need the protection of the law in the control of her own body becomes immediately fully qualified to have a voice in the management of public affairs!

In his classic work ‘The Fraud of Feminism‘, published in 1913, he similarly refers to it as ‘that favourite crank of the feminists’ :

“That favourite crank of the Feminist, of raising the age of consent with the result of increasing the number of victims of the designing young female should speak for itself to every unbiased person.”

I have still only read a handful of his numerous works, but there is no doubt that these quotes demonstrate that Bax, like every anti-feminist of the period, was opposed to the feminist raising of the age of consent. It had been raised from 13 to 16 in the 1885 Criminal Amendment Act, after years of lobbying from the feminist dominated ‘Social Purity Movement’. The act also criminalized prostitution and made homosexuality a crime punishable by death. It was based on a feminist/tabloid engineered moral panic over the myth of ‘white slavery’ – young teens being trafficked into forced prostitution. Feminists have always had the same modus operandi. Furthermore, it can be argued that the age of consent was the feminist’s original rasion d’etre (and still is today) – hence the comments by Bax on their obsession with it.
Victorian feminists/suffragettes did not originally campain for the vote as an end in itself – they had already been lobbying for anti-male sex laws, such as raising the age of consent, and started to demand the vote as a means to obtaining those ends. There is probably no single law that is more ‘feminist’ than the age of consent. There is almost certainly no single feminist law that has ruined the lives of more men and boys than the age of consent (of 16/18). Yet MRAs today are so stupid and/or cowardly, that they denounce any other MRA who question it as being ‘feminist infiltrators’.

not guilty david thomasDavid Thomas published ‘Not Guilty : The Case in Defence of Men’, in 1993, possibly the first modern work making the case for men’s rights. Like Bax, he wasn’t afraid to present arguments that today would have gotten him denounced and slandedred as a ‘pedo acceptance advocate’ by the Honey Badger guardians of the contemporary Good Men Project Men’s Rights Movement.

Whilst reading the passages below, keep in mind that the author was a father, arguing mainly from the perspective that this early paedohysteria was a feminist attack upon fathers and the family, as well as male sexuality in general.  Notice that the chapter almost assumes without needing to state explicitly that any intelligent person reading, with a support for men’s rights and a distaste in radical feminism, would agree upon a definition of sexual abuse involving only the forced penetration of a child by an adult.  It is to be noted that today’s MRAs, more often incels and MGTOWs rather than ‘father’s rights activists’, cannot even tolerate discussion of a man being jailed as a ‘paedophile’ for bringing a 17 year old ‘child’ to orgasm as a men’s rights issue, or even men being jailed for looking at pictures of 25 year old women with ‘small breasts’ under feminist ‘child porn’ laws.


“….By then an unlikely alliance of anti-family and anti-patriarchy ideologues, fundamentalist religious fantasists and misguided media celebrities, ever eager for a bandwagon upon which to jump, had managed to persuade the nation that one in three children suffered from sexual abuse administered by men.  What they tended not to reveal was that their conclusions were a deliberate twisting of research which defined abuse in an extremely general sense.  Far from it consisting exclusively of the forcible intercourse which most of us tend to imagine, however disgustedly, in these circumstances, the term was applied to any unwanted sexual experience of any kind.  Any little girl who had seen a flasher in the park had, by that definition, been abused.  Any little boy whose maths teacher had put his hand on his knee had been abused.
Penetration by a penis formed a small proportion of total cases of abuse.  Of those cases, many occured between step-fathers and teenage daughters.  Of the rest, most involved vaginal, rather than anal penetration.  Only a minute fraction within a fraction comprised the activity alledged by the doctors at Cleveland, to wit, the anal penetration of small boys and girls by their fathers.

In my view, the obsessive search for evidence of such perverse behaviour tells you more about the people doing the searching than it does about those being searched.  But, lest anyone doubt the harm that such obsession may bring, let me quote from a letter that was published in the Solicitors’ Family Law Association Newsletter, November 1991.  It was written by a lawyer, whose name and gender were not revealed, although I presume from the account given in the letter that she is female.


“I was sexually abused over a period of approximately two and a half years by a male near relative who had been adopted into my mother’s family.  The sexual abuse has, so far as I am aware, had little discernible effect upon me.  The discovery of the sexual abuse and the trauma of the investigation by professionals have had a profound impact upon me.

When Esther Rantzen introduced her Childline, with the attendant television programmes, I watched, and found to my shock, that the description by one of the participants of the medical examination she had following the discovery of sexual abuse caused me to cry uncontrollably.

I will never forget the ordeal I was put through at the age of seven.  I will never forget the feelings of shame, degradation and intense physical invasion when examined by a paediatrician.  I have no doubt that the same paediatrician would, if questioned, have stressed the consideration, tact, and understanding he showed to me on examination.

My views were not sought as to whether I should be examined.  I doubt if I would have had the knowledge or understanding to express or hold my own views.  In retrospect, of course, I have strong views, but those are formed only with the knowledge of hindsight.  I was seven : these were ‘grown ups’ who knew best what should be done with me.

How much needless suffering is caused by children who have been sexually abused by the professionals?…In my own view, the sexual abuse I suffered, was to quote a judge in a rape trial, ‘a pretty tepid affair’.  The subsequent sexual abuse I suffered at the hands of a paediatrician will live me for the rest of my life.”


Later in the same Chapter, David Thomas continues :

“It is generally agreed that a child who is compelled to have sex with an adult against his or her own will suffers lasting damage.  Certainly that would be a common-sense view, and one with which, as a parent, I would instinctively agree.  In August 1992, however, the New Statesman published a special issue devoted to opinions that were politically incorrect.  One of its articles, by Edward Barrie, suggested that the after-effects of sexual activity might be less traumatic to children than had previously been supposed.  In particular, he said :
“An enormous investigation was carried out for the German police by Dr. Michael Baurmann, who reported his findings in 1983.  His team carefully assessed 8,058 young people of both sexes (more girls than boys) involved in illegal sexual relationships.  They found that in many cases no harm was done – neither emotional nor physical.  About 1,000 boys under the age of 14 took part in the study, and not one of those was found to have been harmed.  Harm to the girls, when it occurred, was sometimes (not always) a result of the sex act itself, and sometimes the result of heavy-handedness by police, parents and others in the aftermath.  Bauermann has shown conclusively that a child may well become a victim purely because victimisation is expected.  More recent police department follow-up studies have confirmed the findings.”
Those findings, astounding though they seem at first glance, tally with the experiences of the solicitor whose letter about her experiences of abuse that I reproduced earlier in the chapter.  They make me question whether the important social issue which both British and American society needs to confront is not abuse itself, but our apparent obsession with it.

Barrie remarks : “Perhaps most sinister of all, a young woman university graduate working on a doctoral thesis and pursuing the ‘harm done’ aspects of abuse, with help from….overseas experts, was denied a grant unless she came up with findings that would help the authorities ‘detect peadophiles’.  She found this distortion of her views unacceptable.”

At this point the truth is clouded with exaggeration and confusion that one cannot do anything other than speculate about what is really going on.  But when celebrities que up to reveal ever more lurid accounts of their childhood experiences, or publicise abuse helplines, the sickness to which they bear witness may just be the profound suspicion with which the Anglo-Saxon world regards sex.  That, and the belief that the quickest route to public approval is to label oneself a victim – even if one happens to be a millionaire rock star, or a candidate for the presidency.

Consider, specifically, the determination with which some women seek to paint a picture of rampant sexual abuse, practiced entirely by men.  Is this motivated by an altruistic desire to cure a social malaise, or just a fearful hostility towards male sexuality as a whole?  Are they simply projecting their own terror onto children?  Is there anything to choose between the dysfunction that causes an adult to seek out sex with children, and the dysfunction that persuades a doctor or social worker that she is surrounded, on every side, by a raging sea of sex abuse?”

Angry HarryAngry Harry was and always will be, however much Paul ‘Ego’ Elam resents it, the founder of the online men’s rights movement. Although Harry was a conservative (libertarian), and made it clear that he was broadly in favour of the present age of consent, on multiple occasions he also made clear that he felt sentences were too harsh, feminist definitions such as ‘child rape’ for ‘consensual sex’ inflated and misleading, and above all, that paedohysteria was an expression of anti-male hatred. As I pointed out recently, he also crticised feminist child porn laws, referring to them as ‘thought crimes‘.

Most importantly of all, Angry Harry was vehmenently opposed to the billion dollar feminist abuse industry, a money making monster that first Paul Elam and then the ‘Honey Badgers’ have all happily validated and sought a piece of the financial cake in through the sexual victimization of boys and men.


The organism has become a monster, and it is feeding off the broken lives that it, itself, is creating. The abuse industry needs to be cut down to size so that it only has the wherewithal to deal with serious cases of abuse. As with most things in life, it is all a question of balance.

And the laws and the various definitions also need adjustment so that innocent people – and also those who have not done anything seriously bad – are not dragged through such a horrible mill.

Once again, it is all a question of balance.

In particular, Angry Harry repeatedly warned of the dangers of victim labelling, especially young children, and telling them that they will be damaged for life as a result of their ‘abuse’. This is the opposite of what Paul Elam, Hannah Wallen et al. are doing. In fact, Paul Elam and Angry Harry publicly fell out over this issue and Harry was only saved from being booted out of the movement he created because Elam reluctantly had to accept that the rest of the MRM would not allow such treatment of a figure loved and respected by everybody (I’m not sure if 90% of the current ‘MRAs’ even know who Angry Harry was).

Of course, victims of abuse – children or adults – might be horrendously damaged by their various ordeals, but when those in the abuse industry make blanket pronouncements suggesting that all cases of ‘abuse’ lead inevitably to significant permanent psychological harm, then they are talking absolute nonsense and damaging the most vulnerable victims in the process.

Most unwanted sexual abuse, for example, is probably a bit like having a car accident of some sort.

It might cause long term permanent damage – e.g. a major road crash – or virtually nothing at all – e.g. a minor scratch on the hood.

Most acts of ‘abuse’ as currently defined by those working in the abuse industry are, like most car accidents, relatively trivial. It is those working in the abuse industry who always try to make matters sound far worse in order to gain extra funding – and also in order to demonise men.

And, in doing this, not only does it damage people’s relationships, it causes significant harm to victims of both serious and trivial ‘abuse’.

See also : http://www.angryharry.com/Child-Abuse-The-Real-Culprits.htm and

Harry actually wrote countless articles on this subject and usefully collected them all through an image banner link in his sidebar. Oddly, I can’t see that anymore anywhere on his site. As his partner appears to have unwisely given ownership of his site to Paul Elam, I sincerely hope no acts of revisionism have taken place.

After Harry – How did feminist child sex abuse laws become off topic to the MRM?

We’ve seen that discussions on the validity of feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws, which are now completely taboo in the Men’s Rights Movement, were seen as almost taken for granted as mens’ rights issues by..

The first Men’s Rights Activist Ernest Belfort Bax.

The first Men’s Rights author of the modern period David Thomas.

The founder of the online men’s rights movement Angry Harry.

So how has it come about, not much more than a decade or so after Angry Harry first went online and set in motion the explosive growth of the modern men’s rights movement, that it is now completely taboo to even refer to feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws as men’s rights issues, except in relation to the problem of false accusations?

One figure looms large – Paul Elam. A person who admitted spending a significant proportion of donations received at AVoiceforMen on lavishly furnishing his home, Elam now makes a living off of the back of his MRA validation of the feminist child abuse industry by working as a psychological counselor for men. The fact that he recently referred to Eivind Berge as ‘a nutter’ – a man who the Norwegian authorities tried and failed to have declared insane for his men’s rights beliefs – shows just how much expertise he actually has in the field of male mental health (or real ‘men’s rights’). The MRM was little more than a personal vanity project for Elam. He even tried to rebrand it, Good Men Project style, as the ‘Men’s Human Rights Movement’ to distance himself from the 100 years that had gone before from Bax to Harry, to make it his own and to make it acceptable to feminists, and especially, the billion dollar feminist abuse industry. When that failed, he ‘sexed up’ the movement by employing wave after wave of middle-aged femiservative staff who quickly became known as the ‘Honey Badgers’.

Hannah Wallen sexy honey badger mra
Paul Elam attempted to appeal to ‘MGTOWs’ by ‘sexing up’ the MHRM through employing dozens of ‘Honey Badger’ females and transgenders such as Hannah Wallen

Since Elam semi-retired in order to coin it in as a male ‘therapist’, the Honey Badgers have been left in virtual control of the MRM. As you would expect, these middle-aged women who feel betrayed by feminism for allowing their husbands to divorce them for younger females, will not countenance any attempts by ‘pedo acceptance advocates’ to speak about the age of consent, or to raise the issue of a million men being on the sex offenders register in the USA alone, increasingly officially classed as Untermenschen. Their only concession is to allow MRAs to campaign for adding a few thousand horny female teachers onto the register, and thereby validate both the feminist age of consent, and the feminist billion dollar sex abuse industry.

More broadly, the center of power in the MRM has shifted from its historical home of London to the puritanical USA. Ernest Belfort Bax, David Thomas, and Angry Harry were all British, and all based (at least for a time) in London. Not to compare myself to these greats, but if you are convinced by my arguments here that inflated feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws are fundamental to men’s rights issues, as the first MRA, the first modern MRA author, and the founder of the online MRM all clearly felt they were, then there is also an argument to be made that I am the last MRA – also British and formerly based in London – at least in that line. The last MRA (along with Eivind Berge, Steve Moxon (also British), Scarecrow and a handful of others) who can recognize that any feminist law that harms men is a men’s rights issue.

As I mentioned earlier in this article, in the early days of the modern men’s rights movement, opposition to discussion of the age of consent etc. would come almost entirely from the father’s rights faction who, along with Harry, built the movement. But even there it was rarely as vicious as the attacks that today come from the women and transngeders who have infiltrated and taken over the movement (the ‘Honey Badgers’) and the new crop of MRAs who are simply mirror feminists, seeking to grab all the victimhood for men that women previously enjoyed, including ‘sex abuse’. Father’s rights activists were men who had their lives turned upside down by the feminist court system. Men’s rights for them was about fighting real injustice and defending men from the abuses of the feminist legal system. It wasn’t about telling men who had had a little too much to drink before they banged a girl at a party that they had been ‘raped’, or obsessing with victim labelling 17 year old boys who had gotten lucky with a 25 year old female teacher. And if you weren’t an angry father, just a male who opposed the demonization of men, it was obvious (at least in the not so puritanical GB) that feminist child abuse laws and definitions were wildly inflated.

It should also be noted that 15 or 20 years ago, feminist sex abuse hysteria was still centered on the father as being the most common child sex abuser (of his daughter – which statistically, is in fact the case). The internet driven hysteria over the paedophile bogeyman always online, always waiting to groom and corrupt your teenage daughter, took over from the image of the father as being the typical abuser. Father’s rights activists were hardly likely to object to this.

What’s also changed over the last 20 years is the sheer global insane intensity of paedohysteria. Twenty years ago it was possible to speak about these things rationally and engage in relatively cool headed debate. Now you are almost literally taking your life in your hands if you put your head above the parapet, as Evind Berge – so proud of being a public MRA – recently discovered. Twenty years ago it was almost fashionable for liberals like David Futrelle to mock the satanic child abuse panics of the 90’s. Nobody would seriously accuse you of being a satanic child abuser yourself. Today, question feminist child porn laws that lead to men being imprisoned for looking at pictures of teens in biknis, and it’s assumed that you yourself must be ‘looking at kiddy porn’. Of course, the opposite is far more likely to be true, especially if you call yourself a ‘men’s rights activist’. It is surely suspicous enough that you are a men’s rights activist and don’t speak out on these issues, evern more so if you violently object that feminists jailing men for looking at pictures of clothed young women are not and never will be a men’s rights issue. (Especially when, unbelievably, a disturbing number of these ‘MRAs’ choose to have anime pictures of cute skimpely dressed 9 year old girls as their avatars).

The fact that as these feminist child abuse laws become ever more insane and result in ever more male lives being ruined, the less it becomes a men’s rights issue, makes no sense at all. One can only assume that most of the ‘MRAs’ who are willing to denounce real MRAs like myself and Eivind Berge as ‘pedo acceptance advocates’, and who are not a ‘honey badger’, are almost certainly acting from self-preservation at the thought of law enforcement looking at their browsing history.

I will close with some words quoted by David Thomas in his classic Men’s Rights book.

In my view, the obsessive search for evidence of such perverse behaviour tells you more about the people doing the searching than it does about those being searched.

Which MRA Pedo Acceptance Advocate Said This About The Age of Consent?

That favourite crank of the Feminist, of raising the age of consent with the result of increasing the number of victims of the designing young female should speak for itself to every unbiased person.

Which disgusting, depraved and fake MRA said these words quoted above? Which shameless paedo acceptance advocate (to use the phrase of Honey Badger transgender Hannah Wallen) infiltrated the movement as a front for pedo apologism? Was it the ‘nutter’ Eivind Berge? Maybe the notorious ‘Schopenbecq’? Thankfully, both of these fakes have long been drummed out of the MRM by the fearless Honey Badgers and their feminist Twitter mob allies. So who was the pervert who uttered these lines, supposedly in defence of ‘Men’s Rights’ (chuckles)?

It was Ernest Belfort Bax, the first Men’s Rights Activist in history. A man even the likes of Paul Elam, with his ego the size of a galaxy, has to acknowledge as the founder of the men’s rights movement.

The words hardly need explaining. As the author states, they should speak to any unbiased person. Written in 1913, the classic ‘The Fraud of Feminism‘ stands as the first major declaration of men’s rights (in the context of anti-feminism). Ernest Belfort Bax, like every other anti-feminist of the time, bitterly opposed the feminist raising of the age of consent (from 13 to 16, and feminists have always wanted it higher). As his words suggest, it is the duty of an anti-feminist men’s rights supporter to oppose feminist laws that lead to men being imprisoned on the basis of feminist lies, hysteria, and vested self-interest. Incredibly, this has been forgotten today, but in terms of ‘men’s rights’ this is a very recent thing. I will show this more conclusively next week with a detailed history of the MRM from Bax to Angry Harry, up to the point it was hijacked by charlatans and puritan femiservatives and transgenders such as Paul Elam, Hannah Wallen, and the other ‘Honey Badgers’. Stay tuned.

*In other news – sex cartel trade union theory confirmed part 2519. A female book reviewer openly admits that women run a sex cartel and that Tinder, porn, prostitution etc., has led to cheap sex to the detriment of women. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-are-good-men-so-hard-to-find/article36365252/

It’s simply beyond belief that MRAs can fully grasp that feminists are running a cartel when it comes to opposition to prostitution, porn, sex robots, MGTOW, sex tourism etc., but somehow, feminists are acting from noble motives when it comes to the age of consent. It’s the one thing feminists have done right. When it comes to the age of consent, they nailed it, and we should support them. Feminists create laws that put men in prison to be raped as perverts for merely looking at a picture of a 17 year old girl in a bikini, because on this one issue and one issue alone, they are being completely selfless and moral and promoting purely the welfare of ‘children’. TBH, such MRAs are either stupid beyond belief, or it simply tells us how much they don’t want anyone looking at their browsing history.

Angry Harry – ‘Imagine that, for some reason, you are determined to ruin a child’s life’

Another classic Angry Harry article that needs preserving, that needs studying by anyone who claims to be a ‘men’s rights activist’, and that who thinks that forcing feminist definitions of rape and child abuse onto men and on to teenage boys is ‘men’s rights’.  Before I link to the article and reprint the most important excerpt from it (but please read and then read again the entire original article), here are five brief points for so called ‘MRAs’ to consider:

1/ Modern age of consent laws are an entirely feminist invention. Their justification was, is, and always has been based upon feminist arguments, hysteria, and junk science advocacy ‘research’.

2/ Feminist age of consent laws lead to tens of thousands of men being imprisoned (and very often raped).

3 / Feminist age of consent laws lead to feminists telling both teenage girls and teenage boys (with the help of ‘MRAs’) that they have been scarred for life.

4 / Unsurprisingly, those teenagers do tend to develop into fucked up adults..

5 / In short, feminist age of consent laws lead to tens of thousands of men being raped in prison as subhuman nonces, tens of thousands of teenage girls and thousands of teenage BOYS having their lives unncessarily ruined, the demonization of normal male sexuality as paedophilia, the demonization of all men as paedophiles, daughters afraid of their fathers, girls and boys afraid of their (male) teachers, divorced wives given an easy false abuse claim option etc etc. Feminist age of consent laws do however make thousands of feminists rich (and Paul Elam). They also increase female sexual power by removing competition, which is why feminists also tend to be against prostitution, sex robots, MGTOW, sex tourism etc etc.  What part of this is so fucking difficult for you simple minded frauds to understand?


Imagine that, for some reason, you are determined to ruin a child’s life.

What you could do is this.

You pretend to be very concerned about the child, and continually demonstrate what a trustworthy and credible person you are, and you tell the child, with full solemnity, sadness, and seriousness, that the little brown mole on the child’s back is a malignant cancer. You then go on to describe, on a daily basis, how painful and how damaging this cancer is going to be for the child.

The fact that the mole is utterly benign, and causes no sensation at all, is completely irrelevant. If the child is successfully convinced about it being a malignant cancer, and absorbs from you all the horrors that such illnesses entail, and, further, if the child is reminded about this constantly, you will certainly destroy his future well-being to a very large extent.

And yet this is the very kind of thing that the abuse industry does to children and adults, particularly over sexual matters.

In the case of adults, consensual sex can later be made to seem more like rape, and, in the case of ‘consensual’ child sex abuse, the incidents can later be ‘interpreted’ similarly, or, more commonly, simply as malicious acts of something akin to a form of psychological violence. And, in both cases, the victims can easily be led to believe that their respective moles are malignant cancers – ‘psychological cancers’ – with all the pain and misery that this gives rise to.

However, while it is definitely not a good idea for children to be sexualised – e.g. see Delay Delay Delay When it Comes to Sex – because there are many negative aspects to children engaging in ‘consensual’ sexual activities, the truth of the matter is that psychological trauma is not one of them.

And I must stress here that I have ONLY been talking about ‘consensual sex’.

Where ‘psychological trauma’ does appear to occur following ‘consensual’ sex, the major cause of it seems mostly not to derive directly from the events themselves, but from the way in which influential others respond to them. If these give out the message that the mole is a malignant cancer, then the emotional damage can be very great indeed.

See also another article (one of many on this theme) by Harry – written after Paul Elam had attempted to kick him out of the men’s rights movement for not going along with the AVoiceforMen feminist abuse industry agenda : http://www.angryharry.com/reTeaAbuse.htm

Hannah Wallen & Paul Elam – How they Killed the Men’s Rights Movement

This site – theantifeminist.com – is one of the last of the ‘first wave’ of men’s rights sites still standing. Next year it celebrates it’s tenth anniversary. I have been a men’s rights activist since I picked up Neil Lyndon’s classic ‘No More Sex War’ as a university student in the mid 1990’s. Admittedly, I didn’t take much part in the early internet newsgroups and so on. I think I was turned off by some (a few) of the ‘father’s rights activists’ and their anti-sex hostility. Looking back, it’s a shame I didn’t stay and fight my corner right then, rather than jump back in a few years later when the online MRM was really starting to take off (thanks to Angry Harry). It would have been a lot easier, and things right now might be very different.

It seems to me then, and if my memory serves me correctly, that the proto online men’s rights movement was largely British dominated, and was still a long way from being taken over by American puritan conservatives, let alone puritan femiservative American women (and ‘transgenders’) as it has today. Still, nearly 25 years a men’s rights supporter, and a decade at the heart of the online MRM, is not a bad track record.

As readers will be aware, I’ve stepped back both from this site for a while, and the MRM for even longer. This week, I stepped back in and it was something akin to walking through the gates of hell.

When you’ve been a men’s rights supporter for 25 years, it is a truly surreal and somewhat nightmarish experience to be told by a transgender feminist ‘MRA’ that you’re not an MRA, but simply a ‘pedo acceptance advocate’. Furthermore, that it did this using feminist arguments, to defend a feminist sex law, that leads to far more men (and even boys) being raped in the ass for real, in prison cells, than have ever been raped by women. What’s more, that transgender fraud ‘MRA’ then constantly retweets its slander in order to get a mob of similar feminist, beyond ugly, ‘female MRAs’ (as well as their lapdog male white knight ‘mras’) to attempt to bully and threaten me into silence.

It is decidedly byeond surreal and nightmarish to be told that you are a subhuman pedophile for claiming that is normal for a man to find a 17 year old girl like this to be attractive (17 year old Anna Kournikova)

when the thing shaming you and seeking to define what is and isn’t normal male sexuality looks like this :

Hannah Wallen Honey Badger MRA
Hannah Wallen Honey Badger – identifies as a female, and even more distubringly… as an ‘MRA’

So it’s men’s rights for hideously ugly middle-age femiservative ‘women’ to tell MRAs of 25 years standing that they are subhuman pedo advocates for admitting sexually fertile 17 year old women are attractive, and it’s not men’s rights to claim that it is an evil for society to classify men and male sexuality as paedophiles/paedophilia for any attraction to 17 year old women? Really? Hell, you can keep your ‘men’s rights movement’. I want no further part of it.

Perhaps it was before it infiltrated the movement, but I wonder if Hannah Wallen recalls the time several years ago when Paul Elam got an e-mail from three fifteen year old English schoolgirls and was posting/boasting about it as a ‘perk of the job’ within an hour on A Voice for Men? (the original article on AVfM, it seems now taken down, had a pic of three sexualized giggling (rather infantalized) bikini clad teen girls for illustration – presumably how Elam was picturing them as he read their mail in bed with a morning boner. But you can still read the text of it here : http://triggeralert.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/paul-elam-gets-email-from-three-uk.html)

I wish MRAs had shown the level of mob fury they can display against other MRAs who speak out against feminist sex laws, against David Futrelle and his readers when they were defending a sick child snuff porn movie – Salo – being sold in gay sex shops. Instead, I got a lot of MRAs (or ‘MHRA’s) coming here from AVfM denouncing me and defending Futurelle, claiming that Salo was ‘high art’ that I just couldn’t understand. Salo contains little else but graphic images of real naked children, chiefly boys (‘supposedly acting’) being forced to eat the excrement of their abusers before being tortured and murdered. The director of that movie – Pasolini – was a convicted homosexual paedophile who chose the child actors in his movies on the basis of their youthful good looks and would attempt to have sex with them. Looking back at the lack of support, or even opposition, amongst MRAs in my attacks on Futrelle and his love of that film, and you perhaps get an idea why they are so obsessed with the rape of boys, as well as furious at any attempts to stand up for normal male heterosexuality.

There is no conceivable universe which exists in which it is not a men’s rights duty to at least allow the questioning of the basis of feminist sex laws that imprison hundreds of thousands of men worldwide, that define those men as true subhumans not to have any sympathy or basic human rights, and that ever more define entirely normal male sexuality as ‘paedophilia’ – the greatest perversion on Earth. Hannah Wallen, the new face of the men’s rights movemnt, the movement that Angry Harry above all built, thinks that any man who so much as has a sexual thought regarding a 17 year old ‘child’ is a subhuman paedophile who should be locked up for life to be raped and beaten. This is a ‘woman’ who gets a twitter mob of its feminist and ‘MRA’ allies (many of them with anime avators featuring cute 9 year old girls) to literally threaten the life of Eivind Berge for holding a view that women can’t rape men (*I don’t entirely agree with Eivind on this, but the point is he holds that view, based on his deep understanding of evolutionary science, primarily because the view that women can rape men validates feminist sex laws rather than fights them).

In twenty years or less, it will be possible for law enforcement to look into the minds of men as easy as they can today look into harddrives for the traces of one single thumbnail of a ‘young looking’ 25 year old in school uniform, that might be enough to put you in prison to be raped as a paedophile nonce. Hannah Wallen and her feminist/MRA followers, argued that any man who has ever had a sexual thought regarding a 17 year old ‘child’ is a subhuman paedo who deserves to be in prison to be raped.

Without any exaggeration, this is Paul Elam’s legacy to the movement Harry built. The men’s rights movement of today, led almost entirely by women and transgenders, seeks to have virtually every man on Earth in prison, where they will be raped as subhuman paedophiles – something that the likes of Hannah Wallen and her honey badger pals – supposedly so concerned about male rape – find amusing.

TBH, I’m not sure why I’m wasting my time here. I accept that the men’s rights movement has been lost and the likes of paedocrite frauds such as Paul Elam and his sexy ‘Honey Badgers’ have ‘won’ but there’s nothing, nothing, nothing, that can change the fact that they are frauds and that the feminist war on male sexuality, including inflated definitions of paedophilia (in the context of the current global and medieval like hysteria over paedophilia) are men’s rights issues.

Even if it is true, that there are 100 ‘MRAs’ who will denounce me for every one that would agree with me on this issue, it means nothing. I remember a few years back when the MRM was still in its relative infancy that feminists made a concerted campaign to take it over via the infamous Good Men Project. For a while, these ‘men’ were calling themselves the ‘true MRAs’. What if the Good Men Project had succeeded? Would it make any difference to the fact that they were frauds, and that people like Angry Harry – who they denounced as sexist, pro rape, pro wife beating etc – would forever be the true MRAs? No it wouldn’t, and even the likes of Paul Elam might be able to see that. Similarly, people like myself and Eivind Berge..and indeed Angry Harry… will always be the true MRAs, no matter how many of thousands of pussy whipped ‘MRAs’ the Honey Badger feminists manage to control.

So..this is why I rarely post here now. The men’s rights movement is clearly dead. However, things are not that bad, despite this. The ideas of Angry Harry (and to a much lesser extent, the likes of myself) spread out and influenced wider movements, and the wider Web, and into ‘real life’ and politics, even if people don’t always recognize them as having a ‘men’s rights’ origin. Hell, we even have a President of the United States now who called 13 year old girls hot and who regularly referred to men’s rights arguments in his presidential campaign. To think that Paul Elam and the honey badgers would likely have kicked out Donald Trump as a ‘pedo advocate’ and incited their feminist/fake MRA followers to lynch him, if he had become an MRA instead of the President!

Angry Harry on the Thought Crimes of Chris Langham

A classic Angry Harry article on the ‘scapegoating’ of Chris Langham, the comedian who was convicted of downloading 15 child porn images, an offence which Harry argues amounts to ‘thought crime’. Harry correctly points out the problems that will be posed when brain scanning tech comes into play in a couple of decades or sooner, or at least problems for the paedocrites who are policing our thoughts if they themselves have to be examined by the scanner.

Honey Badger Hannah Wallen

* Note – I do not necessarily go as far as Harry on this occasion. Langham was convicted of downloading some images that were apparently genuinely abusive. However, the logic of his argument is on the whole sound and I don’t disagree with much of it. It’s also important to re-publish such articles by Angry Harry because thanks to the utter fraud that is Paul Elam, the MRM is now firmly under the control of repulsively ugly ‘honey badgers’ who openly argue that every man who has ever had a sexual thought regarding a 17 year old ‘child’ should be raped and beaten for the rest of their lives as subhuman nonces in prison. With the brain scanning technology that Angry Harry mentions in the article below fast becoming a reality and soon a tool of law enforcement, the men’s rights movement of 2017 is actually campaigning for virtually EVERY MAN ON EARTH to be classified as a subhuman paedophile and put in prison for life.


Chris Langham, a well-known UK comedy actor, was recently imprisoned for downloading fifteen illicit child porn images on to his computer, and in this piece I hope to demonstrate that the punishments being meted out for offences such as this are far too severe, that these severe punishments are largely imposed because of the abuse hysteria and male hatred that are continually being generated by the feminists, the media and the abuse industry, that these punishments are, essentially, for crimes of thought, that the real culprits whose activities very actively promote the sexual abuse of children are getting away Scott free, and that the underlying aim behind both the hysteria and the harshness is, quite simply, part and parcel of the unremitting drive to demonise men and to profit from doing so.

At the outset, however, it is probably wise to state that the argument is not that viewing illicit child material should be made legal, but that the current response to it is unwarranted and way overblown, and, further, that the hysteria about this issue is largely being generated by those very people whose activities promote child abuse in the first place, and that, basically, they are fomenting hysteria to cover up what they, themselves, are doing.

And the first thing that one has to strip away when trying to understand the arguments that follow is that there is no dispute over the fact that the downloading of such images is illegal – and that it should be so. But when we have done this, we are left with the fact that Chris Langham’s crime was trivial – certainly in comparison to many other crimes for which the punishment is slight.

For example, …

She Had Suffered Enough A woman who battered a nine-week-old baby in an horrific attack HAS AVOIDED JAIL after a judge decided she had already suffered enough.

Claire Thompson, 32, who had been entrusted with looking after the infant, was found guilty in March of fracturing its skull, breaking a rib and inflicting up to three leg fractures

But no jail time.

Chris Langham has not abused any child, nor has he promoted the abuse of children. What he has done is simply to look at images of abuse.

He looked at pictures.

But, in practice, he is being taken so horribly to task by the media, the public and, indeed, the law not because he looked at pictures – a trivial offence – but because of what this implies about what might have been going on inside his head and because various powerful groups want to hide the fact that they, themselves, are major promoters and purveyors of child sexual abuse; and, typically, they do this by protesting very heavily that they are outraged by such abuse and by passing the buck on to whomsoever else they can – with much success.

To get a better feel of what is going on here, imagine that Muslims were being prosecuted and vilified simply for looking at pictures of terrorist attacks; the argument being that simply by looking at such pictures, Muslims were both encouraging acts of terrorism and being turned on by them. Or imagine the same arguments being applied to people who watch programs that depict murder and violence – both fictional and non-fictional – viz; that the very act of looking at such material promoted murder and violence as well as indicated that the viewers themselves wished to perpetrate such things.

The whole notion, though having some considerable merit, would be completely unacceptable to the majority of people.

I suggest that the notion does have ‘some considerable merit’ because I actually do believe that if, for example, certain Muslims were persistently attempting to view images of terrorism then this would likely indicate that there was some fascination with the subject and also some likely desire on the part of such Muslims to be engaged in terrorism. I am not saying that this would necessarily be the case, but that there would be a strong likelihood that this would be the case. Furthermore, images of terrorism could easily inspire religious zeal for further terrorism.

And one could apply similar arguments in the case of people who persistently immerse themselves in matters to do with violence.

But we would not be publicly vilifying or prosecuting such people – for many reasons, which are too complex to go into in this article.

And yet Chris Langham is being heavily demonised for having looked at pictures.


Fifteen images hardly constitute evidence for a rabid obsession with their content – and even if it did, it still remains the case that the only ‘crime’ here is ‘downloading pictures’.

Indeed, one of the most aggravating aspects of this case is the almost unbelievably naive discourse that has been generated over the matter concerning the question of whether or not Chris Langham is a ‘paedophile’ – something which he denies. And those who believe that he must be so (which is the vast majority of people, it would seem) are mostly arguing that, therefore, he deserves a prison sentence.

But Chris Langham was not convicted of ‘being a paedophile’. He was convicted for downloading pictures.

And we would not, for example, convict a Muslim of ‘being a terrorist’ simply for downloading pictures.

We would be outraged at the very idea of such a thing.

Furthermore, of course, if it is indeed the case that looking at some fifteen pictures is, in fact, highly indicative of some significant moral defection when it comes to children then what, perhaps, should one make of, say, those police officers who choose to spend many hours every week looking at such material – and who choose to view thousands of pictures? And what should one make of all those therapists who spend hours of their time every week delving into matters relating to child sexual abuse?

Surely, if the desire to look at fifteen images is definitively indicative of say, ‘an unhealthy sexual interest in children’, then those who choose occupations that involve far greater engagement with such material should be viewed with even greater concern.

Indeed, I am almost certain that, one day, we will actually find this to be the case.

Putting this more bluntly; when, for example, brain-scanning technology allows us eventually to state with relative certainty who, exactly, is turned on by child sexual abuse, it will come as no surprise to me if we discover that a very large percentage of those who choose to work in this particular area are, in fact, at the top of the tree when it comes to ‘an unhealthy sexual interest in children’.

And, of course, given the current hysteria and the way that it seems to be heading, I think that men would be very wise to demand that such brain-scanning techniques were employed on such people before they were permitted to embark on any careers involving child sexual abuse. Apart from protecting children, this would also help to ensure that the various pronouncements of those who are involved in such matters were genuinely out of concern for the children rather than, say, the devious machinations of closet paedophiles attempting to gain further access to situations which excite them sexually; something which has happened time and time again over the past two decades; e.g. therapists (of various kinds) claiming that they are interrogating children about sexual matters because of their concern for their welfare when, in fact, they are simply exciting themselves.

And if the notions above suggesting that people should be investigated by brain-scanning technology if they wish to work with children and, further, that they should be penalised if anything untoward is believed to be going on inside their heads at any given time offends you in any way then, perhaps, you are beginning to understand what is being done to Chris Langham – and, indeed, to all men – in one way or another.

(The only difference here is that Chris Langham did not have a brain scan. Instead of such a scan, the fifteen images were used – by the public – as the ‘evidence’ for what was going on inside his head.)

After all, if, according to much of the public, Chris Langham, who does not work with children, deserves severe punishment for an alleged thought crime concerning child sex, then it surely follows that the minds of those who actually work in the area of child sexual abuse need to be investigated very closely indeed – and that if anything untoward going on inside their heads is discovered by a brain scan, then, presumably, they should be vilified much more severely than Chris Langham.

In short, Chris Langham is being demonised for an alleged thought crime.

And I emphasise the word alleged, because I see no evidence, thus far, to prove that anything particularly untoward was actually going on inside his head when he viewed the images.

Most people, however, do not accept this. They would say, “Yeah right. No sexy thoughts were going on inside his head, eh? Pull the other one.”

But hold on a moment.

In his testimony, Chris Langham pointed out that he, himself, had been sexually assaulted at a young age, and that his desire to view such material was related to his inner need to understand the situation from an adult point of view.

Is this really so far fetched? Well, why should it be? – given that millions of people buy books on ‘abuse’ – women mostly – allegedly in order to come to terms with events that they, themselves, have experienced.

Or so we are told.

Indeed, there are nowadays whole sections to be found in libraries and book shops that are solely devoted to tales of child sexual abuse; so popular has such material become.

So why is it so far-fetched to believe that Chris Langham was simply using images to do whatever it is that, for example, women claim to be doing when they immerse themselves in tales of sexual abuse?

Or is it, in fact, the case that people who read such books do actually turn themselves on sexually when they wade through book after book describing child sexual abuse? And, if so, then why are they not also being vilified – and prosecuted – for what is going on inside their heads to do with child sexuality?

The child-abuse hysterics surely cannot have it both ways.

Either people who flock to buy books on abuse are turning themselves on – in which case why are they not vilified and, possibly, prosecuted? – or they are using such books to resolve their personal issues (not for sexual reasons) which is exactly what Chris Langham says he was doing.

So why is Chris Langham being given such a hard time for doing what millions of people do? – with public approval.

And the answer to this question is that, quite simply, Chris Langham is a man.

Had he been a woman, you would not have heard much in the way of outrage from the media or from the public. On the contrary, I imagine that, if anything, we would have been very forcefully led to believe that the woman was a victim of some sort, that her viewing of illicit material was a cry for help stemming from some unwholesome past, and that the utmost sympathy should be accorded to her.

However, because Chris Langham is a man, it is nowadays taken for granted that he must have had some evil intent and that, therefore, he deserves to be treated very harshly indeed. And so he is being vilified for what might have been inside his head as he viewed the pictures.

When it comes to children, western men have been thoroughly demonised, and almost any contact (physical or mental) that they have with children – even their own – must nowadays always be viewed with suspicion, whereas, of course, when women have contact with children, their actions are always to be seen as benevolent.

But let’s leave the last word to Paul Elam. After all, tragic though it is, the men’s rights movement of Angry Harry is but a distant memory. It’s gone. It’s been killed. Having destroyed the movement that Harry built, Elam quit and left the hideous ‘Honey Badgers’ in charge while he cashed in by using his ‘men’s rights’ fame to earn money as a professional mental health therapist to the many male fans of his, quite a few of whom are encouraged to blame their unhappy lives on sexual encounters they experienced as teenagers. No vested interests there then in aggressively maintaining feminist definitions of sex abuse and paedophilia. But the following tweet gives an indication as to just how much Paul Elam cares about the devastating impact of mental health when he wants to use it as a personal insult against those who disagree with him :

Sex addiction theRAPIST jailed for rape of boy 14


A Harley Street therapist who specialises in sex addiction has been jailed for 17 years after he raped a child at a gym.

Nicholas Gully of Eley Crescent, Rottingdean, East Sussex, was sentenced at Hove Crown Court after he was convicted of raping the boy and two other sexual assaults against him.

The court heard how the 48-year-old followed the 14-year-old boy into a public toilets and then raped him in a cubicle.

During the 10 minute assault, the boy was too scared to cry out or fight back, it was said.

Yawnn…yet another quack hypocrite hiding his own sick predilections until the day he gets caught. While I’ve no doubt that the vast majority of these male ‘sex and porn addict’ therapists spend nearly every waking minute fantasizing about raping young boys, this case does seem a little odd on further reflection – even if the guy clearly is a hardcore hypocrite and pervert.

Follows a boy who he thought was over 16 into a cubicle, ‘orally rapes’ the boy while the boy ‘was too scared to resist’, nobody else at the public baths notices anything, boy cries and tells his friends he feels dirty when he gets home. Now serving 17 years in prison.

Well, the jury obviously had more access to the evidence than I have, so he is surely guilty as charged and deserves to rot in jail. Perhaps he can treat his sexually frustrated cellmates for their sex addiction (for free) before he gets raped and sodomized on multiple occasions, as he surely will be. But I can’t help thinking. Although we thankfully live in an age where homosexual men are no longer persecuted and discriminated against, never, never, never attempt to pick up a young male who looks remotely under 25, or you too could end up spending effectively the rest of your life behind bars.