Female Porn Stars Have Higher Self-Esteem Than Other Women (Study)


The latest edition of the Journal of Sex Research has challenged the stereotype that porn actresses have poor self-images and a history of sexual abuse. A report suggests that porn stars have higher self-esteem, a better quality of life and body image, and are more spiritual than their non-adult entertainment counterparts…

…Results showed that the X-Rated stars were more likely to say they enjoyed sex — no surprise there — but perhaps contrary to popular notions, porn stars weren’t any more likely to have had endured sexual abuse than those in the control group. However, some of the results confirmed popular stereotypes. For example, the actresses reported using more drugs than the control group while they also reported having sex for the first time at a younger age (15) than the control group (17)

Unsurprisingly, this cuts no ice with femi-hags, who often present the most ludicrous junk feminist science to justify any new law that furthers their own sexual ends and represses the sexual choices of men (and attractive young women).

The study has been dismissed by feminist commentator Dawn Foster, however, who says the results have disregarded some of the porn industry’s seedier aspects.

“It is dangerous to generalize about a huge industry: women who are successful and in control of their careers in one pocket don’t speak for women in the less scrutinized parts,” Foster said in the Independent. “The study’s main objective seems to be to prove that not all women in porn are exploited: no one has argued that. But glossing over the exploitative aspects helps no one.”

Feminist hag rapists like Dawn often do claim that all women in porn are exploited. Now that this myth has been debunked by an independent study, I guess they have to fall back on the ‘if we need to save just one woman or child from exploitation..’ argument to justify repressing thousands or millions of people.

You can join the ‘Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality’, which published the study, here. As well as recieving copies of the journal, members have voting rights and reduced entrance fees to their regular conferences.

It might be worthwhile if all sex positive men’s rights supporters joined up.

Jay Hammers Classic : ‘The Age of Consent is Misandry’

*This originally appeared in the now defunct blog of ‘Jay Hammers’.  It is notable for being one of the very few extended (and contemporary) anti-feminist attacks on the feminist age of consent.  In fact, Jay Hammers was more or less excluded from the ‘Men’s Rights Movement’ soon after publishing it.  The snappy title is perhaps a little clumsy, in that it allowed opponents to claim that Jay was arguing for the abolishing of the age of consent alltogether, when it seems quite clear from reading the article that he is attacking the feminist age of consent of 16 (in American terms – feminist statutory rape laws), or at least an age of consent based upon an arbitary age (rather than the sexual maturity of the individual girl).

Note also that Jay Hammers abandoned his blog, and his Jay Hammers persona, after Paul Elam made a video attacking him.  He reappeared sometime later in a new and much more radical guise, becoming something of an extreme parody of his former quite reasonable self, even to the point of advocating that 15 year old girls caught having sex with older men be stoned to death (with no offence committed by the man).

The Age of Consent is Misandry (Jay Hammers)

The arbitrary age of consent is not about protecting women/girls. It is about valuing females and their virtue over males and their freedom. The intent of the laws is to stop older men from having sex with younger women and that is how it is enforced. It was never intended to stop younger men from having sex with older women. This is only possible in a society that values females over males, the same society that has so many other examples of legalized discrimination based on sex as long as that sex is male – violence laws such as VAWA, domestic violence laws, family court, accusations of sexual assault & harassment, all criminal sentencing, military conscription, circumcision, etc. We live in a society where misandry runs rampant, unchecked, and enforced by the law.

Age of consent laws are designed to punish beta males. A beta male in his 20s, unsuccessful with women his own age who are infused with a sense of feminist entitlement and deride all but the top alpha males who take interest in them, who seeks companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality. A society that criminalizes this is a society that values females over males and treats women as if they are children.

If we are to treat women as children then we should be consistent. Young women who have sex with older men are as much victims as women who have sex with a pick-up artist after meeting at a club. In both cases, feminists are angry because the woman has been “fooled” into having sex with a less than ideal mate in terms of value. In the first case, the male appears to be of higher value than he really is because he is older and more experienced. In the second case, the male appears to be of higher value than he really is because he has learned the elements of attraction. In both cases, women are presumed (by feminists) to have no responsibility for their own actions and to be little more than children, than animals who are guided only by instinct.

This is what makes feminists angry and this is why age of consent exists still today, because it is assumed women are not mentally mature enough to give consent AND because older women want to limit men’s options to increase their own value in the sexual marketplace. Older women, however, are generally not of a much higher intelligence level than teenage girls. The big difference between the two is that older women are less attractive and that is what makes them so damn angry.

The reason feminists paint all men as perverts, as rapists, is to reinforce the notion that men who seek sex with women, be they pick-up artists or men interested in young women, are mentally ill, when in fact they are simply expressing completely normal male sexuality. This allows feminists to paint women as victims and men as perpetrators. A beta male in his 20s in a relationship with a teenage girl is, far more often than not, simply enjoying the companionship, both physical and emotional. Feminists, however, would have us believe that a college kid computer nerd who dates a teenager is doing it with some evil intentions. This is a lie. A large number of sex offenders these days are simply men who were punished for normal sexuality or in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong girl. Age of consent laws do not stop the real rapists and molestors; instead they put plenty of good men in prison.

Females generally do not significantly mature mentally past puberty so it should always be illegal for any woman to have sex or it should never be illegal for any woman to have sex. There is no arbitrary age where females suddenly become self-aware, realizing the consequences of their actions, and stop seeking out alpha males. Thus there must not be an arbitrary age of consent for sex. There is no arbitrary age where males suddenly stop seeking out attractive, fertile females. Thus there must not be an arbitrary age RANGE of consent for sex either.

If anything, it should be illegal for women to have sex with men until men have been educated on the truths of women, Marriage 2.0, Game, feminism, and men’s rights. If any woman were to seek out sexual audience with a man who has not received his golden certificate showing he has completed his training and has had the snip done to ensure he is not cuckolded, then she should be confined to a prison term of no less than 20 years, with weekly forced anal and vaginal rape. This makes as much sense as requiring men to professionally examine a woman’s ID to verify her age and that the ID is not forged, and to have documented video evidence of sex with her to avoid a false rape claim, to ensure he is not sent to pound-me-in-the-ass prison arbitrarily.

Krauser PUA’s Anti-Feminist Thought of the Day

This is why Krauser is one of the few PUAs I like:

Marriage: working every day like a dog to support a women who every day looks increasingly like a dog


Meanwhile, here is Roosh V explaining why London in miserable November sucks for American PUAs :

Actually, London has many advantages for PUAs, especially newbies. It’s the largest city in Europe, you can game 100 women each and every day and still unlikely to be recognised as ‘the creep who approaches women’. It’s the most cosmopolitan city in the world, so at least if you approach significant numbers of women here you will find out which countries have the most attractive/friendliest girls*. And even the idea that the local girls are ugly isn’t completely true – wealthier areas such as Chelsea and Hampstead have some of the most beautiful totty in the world, as you’d expect given the number of billionaires and supermodel wives breeding in those places.

*BTW, here’s my international ranking of totty from 20 years of living in cosmopolitan London :

Premier League : Russia, Croatia/Serbia, Ukraine, Bulgraria, Slovakia, Argentina, Venezuela, Columbia, Israel, Estonia, Armenia/Georgia/Azerbejan.
First Division : Brazil, Scandinavia, Germany, Mexico, Poland and rest of Eastern Europe
Second Dvision : France, Italy, Japan
Third Division : Spain, Netherlands, China, South Korea, Canada, Australia

Non League : Africans, Americans

The only country I’ve visited in the Premier League is Croatia, and it confirmed my London observations. I would honestly say that 1 in 3 of females in Zagreb between the ages of 14 and 22 would turn the head of an average heterosexual male if they were walking down a London street. (the average in the UK is probably 1 in 50 at most – and then only if she is wearing see through leggings or something).  Hell, even the ‘cougars’ in Zagreb are hot.

And this is Roosh’s controversial recent article comparing women to bread, that caused such a stir amongst paedocrites recently :


Beethoven’s Musical Inspiration & Sexuality

Anton Schindler, Beethoven’s biographer from his own era, thought that the Immortal Beloved was a young heartbreaker named Countess Giulietta Guicciardi who burst into Beethoven’s life in 1800 when she was 16 and he was 30. She had recently arrived from Italy with her family and she was young, sexy and vibrant. Greatly impressed with his musical genius, Giulietta did not mind his middling looks and general untidiness. One can speculate that Beethoven was not a good teacher; his head full of his own melodies. He cannot have been impressed with the playing abilities of his richer students, but then how did he deal with the allure of the young woman sitting before him. What must he have been thinking? Presumably music and erotic thoughts collided? Was marriage ever discussed? Since Beethoven had no title and no money, let alone what everyone perceived as his eccentric nature, her family would have objected to any match. Schindler feels Giulietta was no more than a coquette, an adventuress, like many young women at that age. She had a beautiful body, delicate features, great skill at flirtation and there was never any doubt that she could find herself a good husband. For that reason, she probably did not really want Beethoven and perhaps he knew it. A pleasant interlude did occur between the two at Korompa (a town beginning with the letter “K”), but she seems to have found it little more than a flirtation.

Beethoven’s relationship with Giulietta appeals to romantics. The beautiful Moonlight Sonata, which is dedicated to her, captures the spirit of their relationship: it sounds like moonlight on rippling waters. Beethoven wrote to his friend Wegeler in November 1801: “You can scarcely believe how desolate, how sad my life has been for two years; my defective hearing has haunted me like a specter and I have fled from people, have had to appear a misanthrope when I am so little like one. This change has been wrought in me by an adorable, enchanting maiden who loves me, and whom I love; again after two years there are happy moments, and for the first time I feel that marriage could make me happy. Unfortunately she is not of my station in life.” This almost certainly refers to Giulietta. But what also comes through in his writings from this time is the collision between his musical ambitions and his love for women, and music must always come first: “For me there is no greater pleasure than to practice and to display my art.” Though women stimulated and inspired his music, they could also drive him to distraction. Women were to be both his muse and his destroyer.

The onset of his deafness is crucial. After his break with Giulietta, he went on to write the traumatic diary entry known as the Heiligenstadt Testament, named after a village northwest of Vienna that has now been swallowed up by the city. This document of 1802 (May-October) lays out Beethoven’s thoughts about his deafness and whether it meant he could find transcendence through music. This seems to be consistent with his beliefs in freedom, musically as well as politically. Freedom from class oppression, freedom from the old musical tyrannies, and freedom from infatuations with women perhaps! At any rate, he emerges stronger for it, and he never marries: “Had I chosen to give up my vitality to this love, what would have remained for that which is noble, better?”

Giulietta married Count Gallenberg in November of 1803 and they left Vienna for Italy. The Count was also a musician, though clearly not of Beethoven’s caliber and it seems the marriage was not a particularly happy one. Beethoven then plunged into one of his greatest symphonies, the “Eroica” 3rd Symphony, and perhaps we have Giulietta to thank for that, as much as we have to thank Napoleon Bonaparte.


Four and a half months later Beethoven again wrote at length to Wegeler: his doctors had been unable to help his hearing, but he was leading a slightly more pleasant life.

You can scarcely believe what an empty, sad life I have had for the last two years. My poor hearing haunted me everywhere like a ghost; and I avoided all human society. I was forced to seem a misanthrope, and yet I am far from being one. This change has been brought about by a dear charming girl who loves me and whom I love … and for the first time I feel that marriage might bring me happiness. Unfortunately she is not of my class.

This letter is similar to the earlier ones in containing phrases that are very exalted in tone: ‘I will seize Fate by the throat; it shall certainly not crush me completely – Oh it would be so lovely to live a thousand lives’. Such passages, and their more gloomy counterparts, are characteristic of his conflicting moods as he faced the prospect of permanent deafness and the quite unexpected threat to what had hitherto been a triumphant career. An attitude of pious resignation, with which he tried to master such unruly feelings, did not come easily to him but found expression in the six hymn-like settings of sacred poems by Gellert (Op. 48), which he completed at about this time.

The ‘dear charming girl’ who was brightening Beethoven’s days was no doubt the Countess Giulietta Guicciardi. She was now not quite 17: too young, and perhaps too spoilt, to take Beethoven’s devotion very seriously, though no doubt she was flattered for a time by the attentions of a famous composer, a man much admired by her cousins. Much, probably too much, has been made of the fact that it was to her that he dedicated the ‘Moonlight’ Sonata (Op. 27 No. 2), written in 1801. But it is clear that for a time he was under her spell – she even boasted of this – and he must have had mixed feelings when in November 1803 she married Count Wenzel Robert Gallenberg, a prolific composer of ballet music, who was only a year older than herself.


Beethoven was a real man. Wegeler said that there was never a time when Beethoven was not in love.
Beethoven was on a lifelong quest for the perfect woman, someone of immense beauty and intellectual
qualities, who was not moody or unpredictable but constant in all her ways. As perfect women do not exist
no women ever really fulfilled his expectations. Yet he had morals. He wrote of not wanting a physical
relationship with a married woman since it would break any trust she had in him. At one time, he lived
opposite a family called Flohberger who had a daughter, Lise, who had a bad reputation. He would watch her
unnoticed. He seemed to have been obsessed with the immorality of women. Ferdinand Ries wrote that
Beethoven ‘loved to see women, particularly pretty young faces; he would turn his hand to look at one and would laugh or grimace if I observed him doing so’. His interests were usually young pretty girls simply
because he loved the idea of virginity. But they had to be intellectual. As with Lise, Beethoven felt that once
a woman had had sex, she had lost her virtue and, perhaps, he felt that any woman he admired should only
lose their virginity to him. The Moonlight Sonata was dedicated to Countess Giulietta Guicciardi with whom
he was clearly in love. Her father disallowed an engagement since Beethoven did not have the rank, finances
and position. There were the Brunsvik sisters, Therese and Josephine. To Therese he dedicated his Sonata in
F sharp. opus 78. During 1804 Beethoven developed a deep love for Josephine but she married Count Deym
who loathed music but when he died in 1804 this revived Beethoven’s love for her. He adored her and yet
she was not in his requirements for his ideal woman. She had been married and was therefore no longer pure.
By 1805 he was writing love letters to her. But the love between them died….

…But the apotheosis of the dance, the glorious Seventh Symphony, has a
rhythmic vitality and, again, it is sexual, the work of a normal red-blooded
male. It is orgasmic. Beethoven is here in the music and so are the pretty
young women he admired. Dance in itself is sexual. It is the legitimate
touching or holding of a girl so that you can dance with her. The climaxes
in the music portray something else. It is as sensual as Schoenberg’s
incomparable Transfigured Night or Berg’s impressive Violin Concerto
written to the memory of an angel, the eighteen year old daughter of
Manon Gropius.


BEETHOVEN’S LETTERS TO COUNTESS GIULIETTA GUICCIARDI.[1] (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13065/13065-h/13065-h.htm)

Morning, July 6, 1800.


Only a few words to-day, written with a pencil (your own). My residence cannot be settled till to-morrow. What a tiresome loss of time! Why this deep grief when necessity compels?–can our love exist without sacrifices, and by refraining from desiring all things? Can you alter the fact that you are not wholly mine, nor I wholly yours? Ah! contemplate the beauties of Nature, and reconcile your spirit to the inevitable. Love demands all, and has a right to do so, and thus it is I feel towards you and you towards me; but you do not sufficiently remember that I must live both for you and for myself. Were we wholly united, you would feel this sorrow as little as I should. My journey was terrible. I did not arrive here till four o’clock yesterday morning, as no horses were to be had. The drivers chose another route; but what a dreadful one it was! At the last stage I was warned not to travel through the night, and to beware of a certain wood, but this only incited me to go forward, and I was wrong. The carriage broke down, owing to the execrable roads, mere deep rough country lanes, and had it not been for the postilions I must have been left by the wayside. Esterhazy, travelling the usual road, had the same fate with eight horses, whereas I had only four. Still I felt a certain degree of pleasure, which I invariably do when I have happily surmounted any difficulty. But I must now pass from the outer to the inner man. We shall, I trust, soon meet again; to-day I cannot impart to you all the reflections I have made, during the last few days, on my life; were our hearts closely united forever, none of these would occur to me. My heart is overflowing with all I have to say to you. Ah! there are moments when I find that speech is actually nothing. Take courage! Continue to be ever my true and only love, my all! as I am yours. The gods must ordain what is further to be and shall be!

Your faithful

Monday Evening, July 6.

You grieve! dearest of all beings! I have just heard that the letters must be sent off very early. Mondays and Thursdays are the only days when the post goes to K. from here. You grieve! Ah! where I am, there you are ever with me; how earnestly shall I strive to pass my life with you, and what a life will it be!!! Whereas now!! without you!! and persecuted by the kindness of others, which I neither deserve nor try to deserve! The servility of man towards his fellow-man pains me, and when I regard myself as a component part of the universe, what am I, what is he who is called the greatest?–and yet herein are displayed the godlike feelings of humanity!–I weep in thinking that you will receive no intelligence from me till probably Saturday. However dearly you may love me, I love you more fondly still. Never conceal your feelings from me. Good-night! As a patient at these baths, I must now go to rest [a few words are here effaced by Beethoven himself]. Oh, heavens! so near, and yet so far! Is not our love a truly celestial mansion, but firm as the vault of heaven itself?

July 7.


Even before I rise, my thoughts throng to you, my immortal beloved!–sometimes full of joy, and yet again sad, waiting to see whether Fate will hear us. I must live either wholly with you, or not at all. Indeed I have resolved to wander far from you [see No. 13] till the moment arrives when I can fly into your arms, and feel that they are my home, and send forth my soul in unison with yours into the realm of spirits. Alas! it must be so! You will take courage, for you know my fidelity. Never can another possess my heart–never, never! Oh, heavens! Why must I fly from her I so fondly love? and yet my existence in W. was as miserable as here. Your love made me the most happy and yet the most unhappy of men. At my age, life requires a uniform equality; can this be found in our mutual relations? My angel! I have this moment heard that the post goes every day, so I must conclude, that you may get this letter the sooner. Be calm! for we can only attain our object of living together by the calm contemplation of our existence. Continue to love me. Yesterday, to-day, what longings for you, what tears for you! for you! for you! my life! my all! Farewell! Oh! love me forever, and never doubt the faithful heart of your lover, L.

Ever thine.
Ever mine.
Ever each other’s.

[Footnote 1: These letters to his “immortal beloved,” to whom the C sharp minor Sonata is dedicated, appear here for the first time in their integrity, in accordance with the originals written in pencil on fine notepaper, and given in Schindler’s Beethoven’s Nachlass. There has been much discussion about the date. It is certified, in the first place, in the church register which Alex. Thayer saw in Vienna, that Giulietta was married to Count Gallenberg in 1801; and in the next place, the 6th of July falls on a Monday in 1800. The other reasons which induce me decidedly to fix this latter year as the date of the letter, I mean to give at full length in the second volume of Beethoven’s Biography. I may also state that Beethoven was at baths in Hungary at that time. Whether the K—- in the second letter means Komorn, I cannot tell.]

Danielle Sandhu John The Other How Much More Violence

John the Other asks how much more violence against men we can expect from hate activist thugs such as Danielle Sandhu, before it is taken seriously by the mainstream?

Danielle Sandhu – feminist hate activist and bullier of old men :

danielle sandhu university of toronto

Not easily confused with Danielle Sandhu, the British model :

daniel model

I know which one I’d like to be castaway on a desert island with..and the one who it would be a hell to share an elevator with for half a minute.

Is Angry Harry Back?

We certainly hope so :


Where have you been?

What are you doing?

Are you ‘back’?


These are some of the questions that kept recurring in the emails that were sent to me following my recent posting of my most excellent masterpiece Looking Up Women’s Skirts – which I wrote because I was really aggravated about a Japanese film that I saw only part of; a couple of months ago.

Well, let me summarise the situation.

I have not written much for Angry Harry for over a year now. There are many reasons for this.

Too much other work to do. Burn out. Boredom. And a desire to spend my time focusing on other matters…

Kevin Myers : ‘This great, liberal society is silent on decisive social issues of our time’


Nothing exposes the existence of a subconscious political agenda quite like the use of statistics. Take the recently released figures and analyses from the Central Statistics Office, 2010-11. They revealed, amongst others things, that the birth rate amongst Irish women is now catastrophically below replacement level: our overall birth rate is 2.06, which is just below the generally accepted replacement figure of 2.1, and down 36pc in 30 years. But only 77pc of our births were to Irish mothers, so proportionately, the indigenous Irish population is plummeting. However, even to say this is probably “racist” according to the norms of our splendid media studies courses; and so, what would once have been a most salient headline revelation was at best last week a footnote, if even that.

Ireland is now imitating the deathbed demographics of the rest of Europe, which will ensure that the native populations will require the labour and services of immigrants from the developing world to run their trams and, when the time comes, to wipe their bums. What then of the feminist agenda which has supervised the calamitous fall in native fertility, when the robust and reproductive populations within Europe are drawn from other societies, with other religions and perhaps even anti-feminist priorities?

No doubt, the Euro-elites will continue to ignore this irresistible existential tide, because it simply doesn’t suit the underlying egalitarian agenda which sees women’s employment rights as the pre-eminent ideological goal of our time. And, of course, it is a common human strategy, evident from the nursery onwards, when faced with uncomfortable truths to shut the eyes, put two fingers in the ears and to bellow on the top of one’s voice.


Excellent piece by a great anti-feminist writer.

As a side-note, it’s an interesting and curious aspect of the men’s rights movement, that the collapse in the birth-rate (at least of the native population) across Europe, and to a lesser extent in North America, is rarely mentioned let alone used as a stick to beat feminists with.

Perhaps readers may have an explanation for this, or even disagree with my statement – please link to any men’s rights articles that you have read that do discuss it.

I can think of only one blogger who has discussed it at length (antifeministtech.info), and that was to claim that feminism has had nothing to do with the decline in the birth-rate (attributing it solely to rising living standards, the standard excuse that feminists and feminist apologists tend to give).

This is also true with the ‘counter-jihad’ movements, including prominent members such as Mark Steyn who have made the biggest play on the demographic changes to come.  It is a little less surprising in this case, however, because anti-Islamists have a need to beat Muslims around the head with accusations of ‘oppression of women’, one of their most important weapons in fact, and criticism of feminism itself, or at least stating the obvious that feminism leads to a decline in the birth rate, is assumed to be inconsistent with that.  So the very thing that has made the Islamification of Europe possible, or even inevitable, is ignored or denied – women choosing careers instead of families, and hence the necessity of importing massive numbers of slave labour from the surrounding Islamic Third World nations.

Why MRAs Now Fail Men Over Feminist Sex Law Hysteria

During the last week, I’ve been reading quite a lot of classic men’s rights literature, mostly from the 1990’s to the early 2000’s, including writers such as David Thomas (hence the recent post) and Neil Lyndon, author of ‘No More Sex War‘ (published in 1992).

In doing so, the explanation as to why feminist child sex abuse hysteria has come to be such a taboo subject in the MRM suddenly occured to me.

Paedohysteria and the feminist age of consent are no longer simply taboo subjects in the Men’s Rights Movement.  Let’s not kid ourselves. These central feminist dogmas are now actively supported.

Less than two decades ago, and what strikes you isn’t just that men’s rights supporters were openly criticising child sex abuse hysteria, but that these men were speaking primarily from the persepective of FATHERS –  including both Thomas and Lyndon (in the case of Thomas, in very strong terms). And if you read again the passage by Daivd Thomas I recently quoted, you will clearly see that it was understood by the author that any men’s rights supporter would be equally critical.

Fast forward to today, you have those who are indisputably the leading men’s rights activists  ‘vehemently’ supporting the feminist Victorian age of consent, and it appears, the present hysteria that supports its ever more draconian application and justification.  Laws which go some way to explaining the outrageous and shameful statistic that close to a million American men are now on the Sex Offenders Register, and increasingly de-humanized and as good as declared dead by the rest of society.

Yet, in this very week, two superb articles have appeared correctly deriding the suffragettes (who created the present age of consent) as violent terrorists and abusers of men and boys (for the white feather campaign).

And of course, most men’s rights activists would agree with the ‘official’ position on the age of consent and its surrounding issues.

How is this remarkable change within the men’s rights movement to be explained?

The answer, surely, cannot consist simply in the fact that paedo-hysteria is perhaps even worse now than it was 20 years ago.

Because, in the midst of the ‘satanic’ child abuse panics, I don’t think it was….at least not for the men’s rights authors who yet felt able and compelled to speak out against them.

And even in today’s hysteria, many figures from the mainstream media still feel able to speak out on these issues, from the Economist Magazine to academics such as Frank Furedi and even Richard Dawkins.

And when our fiercest critics have either themselves criticised paedohysteria (in articles they would rather we forget) or are even alleged actual child sex abusers, it is a downright lie to pretend that the ceaseless barrage of feminist laws that criminalise and target men are off-topic for a supposed genuine ‘men’s rights movement’ with any integrity and courage.

Paedohysteria hasn’t changed in the last 20 years.  What has changed, and what might explain the change of attitude in the Men’s Rights Movement, is that the focus of paedohysteria and child sex abuse hysteria has changed.

Twenty years ago it was about father’s abusing their children, often in the most bizarre and hideously imagined context possible of ‘ritual satanic abuse’.  This was primarily about radical feminists demonizing the family and the patriarchal father role.

Since then, the target of paedohysteria has switched, and the identity of the paedophile bogeyman been transformed..

Today, it is not so much about fathers sexually abusing their children, but rather hysteria over the internet ‘paedophile’ sex predator.

Instead of the patriarchal father being turned into a pervert, the feminists have moved on to demonising male sexuality in general.

Now it is the Jimmy Savile loner type figure who is once again the perverted devil and the threat to female innocence – the man who never marries, and who never has children, and who has never shown any interest into buying into the marriage contract upon which female sexual power depends.

And this explains the great men’s rights betrayal.

Fathers Rights Activists, who still constitute the greatest and most important demographic of the movement, are simply grateful that they are no longer the target of feminist inspired social hatred and sexual demonisation.  Not only that, in the greatest betrayal, they actively support the spotlight being switched on to male sexuality in general – normal male sexual desire turned into a demonised representation through female sexual bitterness at the consequences of a secular free sexual market economy (an economy that these fathers typically are no longer competing in themselves).  Men’s Rights fathers are thus free to focus on still ‘relevant’ (to them) issues such as domestic violence hysteria.

In this manner, the majority of men’s rights activists, who actively support patently absurd and irrelevant feminst sex laws that target men, are akin to the granny muggers and the drug dealers who beat and rape the lonely old park flashers in the prison showers in order to preserve their own self-esteem and ranking of social and moral (criminal) self-worth.

After all, nobody likes being at the very bottom of the dung heap – especially one created by feminists.