A Manifesto for Male Sexual Rights

As we are all too aware here, the relentless criminalisation of male sexuality by feminists is something that is largely a taboo subject amongst the current ‘men’s rights movement’.  This is a very recent phenomenon – the first men’s rights activist, Ernest Belfort Bax, who lived over 100 years ago, would have been dumbfounded by it (but then, to be fair, he would be equally perplexed by the madness of 21st century paedohysteria). Even in the 80’s and 90’s, child abuse hysteria was something that men’s rights activists, even father’s rights activists, could openly recognise as a threat to men and to the things that give meaning to men’s lives – including the family and intergenerational relations.

Today it seems that discussion of such hysteria only has two valid contexts.  The first is ensuring that female statutory rapists are punished as harshly as male ‘predators’ (equal injustice for all!) and secondly, that men are not singled out for false accusations of paedophilia any more than women are (equal injustice for all!).

Whilst rape culture, and domestic violence culture are openly criticised and recognised as a feminist war upon men, the third member of the unholy matriarchal trinity – paedohysteria, which even the tabloid rag ‘The Sun’ recently recognised, is still a taboo subject that will bring down the men’s rights movement overnight if taken seriously.

We are often presented with a list of men’s rights issues, and sometimes men’s rights manifestos.  The criminalisation of male sexuality is of course always mysteriously and notably absent from such lists.  But what would a manifesto for male sexual rights look like?  Here is my suggestion.  Please add yours in the comments section below :

  • An end to the criminalization of male sexuality.  Whilst we recognise that new technology sometimes requires legislation to be modified in order to protect the vulnerable from new threats, it must also be recognised that a ‘legislative creep’ is taking place, based primarily on moral panics and media manipulation, that appears to have no end, and which will ultimately lead to crimes against humanity (if it has not already done so).
  • The criminalization of Sexual Trade Unionism. We demand that it should be recognised that sex laws that benefit the makers and promoters of those laws – whether financially, sexually, psychologically, or otherwise – be subjected to intense objective and independent scrutiny.  We demand further that if those laws that may have sprung from a selfish motive are found to be lobbied for on the basis of any lies or exaggerations, the individuals concerned be punished severely by law for ‘Sexual Trade Unionism’.  Another way of expressing this demand is the desire that it be made a criminal offence to exploit the vulnerability or sexuality of a child or young person for the financial, sexual, or psychological gain of an adult under the guise of ‘child protection’.
  • The right to anonymity of those men (and women) accused of sex crimes. This basic demand simply recognises the transparent fact that sex crimes are unique in that the mere public accusation can destroy a man’s life, even if he subsequently be found innocent, and that this represents not only a manifest injustice but may also serve as a motive for such false accusations in itself.
  • A false accuser should face the same punishment as the accused would face if found guilty of the alleged crime.
  • A ‘false accuser’ register should be set up – as long as a sex offenders register exists, so should a register for women who make false allegations against men.
  • An end to the ‘sex offenders register’, and it’s replacement (if a replacement is needed) with a ‘violent offenders register’.  This recognises that the focus and obsession with sex offences, many of which are non-violent, as compared with violent offences, is a projection of female values upon the world that is only possible because of the  disregard and disposability of male needs and values.  It is noted that repeated studies confirm that most abuse of children is physical and carried out by the child’s mother.  It is also noted that studies also repeatedly demonstrate that non-violent sex offenders are less recidivist than violent non-sexual offenders.
  • A limit of statutations upon all sex crimes.  Sex offences are the most subject to the passing hysterias and fads of society, as well as the scope for re-interpretation by individual victims over years and decades.  Therefore, it is manifestly wrong to allow the possibility that a man can be judged for a historical offence by a different era, and by essentially a different women (or man) than the original ‘victim’, and even face a different and much harsher punishment than if he had been tried soon after the original offence.
  • The right of two adults to engage in paid for sexual transactions to be enshrined in law.
  • It be recognised as a fundamental human right in a democratic and free society to be able to question the laws that govern society without fear of persecution or prosecution.  This is particularly true in regard to sex laws, given that it is these laws that feminists want to outlaw criticism of in particular, and also because, as previously mentioned, such laws are most likely to be relative in fact to the particular moral fads and hysterias of society.  The recognition that if these fascist laws restricting the right to even question the law had existed even half a century ago, we would likely still be performing crimes against humanity – for example executing and/or castrating homosexuals such as Alan Turing.

 

43 thoughts on “A Manifesto for Male Sexual Rights”

  1. The criminalization with appropriately severe punishments for ‘sex-offender’ vigilantism.
    At the moment these paedocrites are admired and respected by the paedohysterical public, but they are in fact nothing but violent, ignorant thugs whose only interest is hurting others for their own selfish agendas – not to ‘protect children’.
    Children are already protected from criminals by the police and the judiciary, there should be no need for such thugs to take the law into their own hands; especially when they would not have a clue as to how to determine the truthfulness of any allegations made against an alleged paedophile or other ‘undesirable’.

    Repeal all sex-offence laws that define CONSENSUAL sex between couples as rape (because if it’s consensual it simply cannot be). I.e. destroy the meme that a man having fully consensual sex with his under-age girlfriend is ‘rape’, especially when the (fully consenting) younger partner INSISTS she / he was not raped and was not a victim of any crime!

    Review all terms in sex-offence legislation to be truthful and accurate and therefore easy to understand, for example: ‘Child’ currently defined as any person under the age of legal consent for sex. Child should be redefined to be realistic – the same way the medical fraternity defines the word: a person below the age of pubescence…

    That’s just a few, I’m sure the list will grow rapidly!

  2. These are all sensible items. They show that the “alternative” men’s rights movement is not lacking in ideas. I’m sure Warren Farrell would agree with them, although he wouldn’t include them in his books because the book would then be unpublishable. In the mainstream MRM, these items are ignored, ie left for the fems to decide, the message to the fems being “give us shared custody and we leave you in control of the sex abuse industry”.

  3. In the mainstream MRM, these items are ignored, ie left for the fems to decide, the message to the fems being “give us shared custody and we leave you in control of the sex abuse industry”.

    Yes, that sums it up perfectly! They are either SO naive or just scared of being labelled as, thence dealt with by feminist totalitarian sex laws as paedophiles. Personally I think more likely the former reason with most of the mainstream, but the latter reason certainly is a real threat in some countries and as Eric pointed out in a comment yesterday, about MRA blogger ‘Scarecrow’: it is a very effective deterrent! Many are afraid and have good reasons to be.

  4. Whilst rape culture, and domestic violence culture are openly crticised and recognised as a feminst war upon men, the third member of the unholy matriarchal trinity – paedohysteria, which even the tabloid rag ‘The Sun’ recently recognised, is still a taboo subject that will bring down the men’s rights movement overnight if taken seriously.

    well written, Antifeminist.

    Meanwhile, the Daily Mail is kicking pedohysteria up yet another notch:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231167/Fury-Kingsmill-advert-sexualises-children-Shows-skimpy-teenager-posing-provocatively-skimpy-school-uniform.html

  5. IR, Deano posted the same story here last Sunday, but posting it again is certainly appropriate and pertinent to this story. Misandric, feminist Draconian law can never be ignored, at least not by anyone that cares about the welfare and future of men!
    That ad is literally NOTHING, yet it qualified for The Daily Misandrist’s Mail’s Most Read section!
    Pathetic! – How low do they have to go to ensure paedohysteria covers absolutely EVERYTHING or ANYTHING that is linked in any way at all to attractive young women – their competition…

  6. * A limit of statutations upon all sex crimes. Sex offences are the most subject to the passing hysterias and fads of society, as well as the scope for re-interpretation by individual victims over years and decades. Therefore, it is manifestly wrong to allow the possibility that a man can be judged for a historical offence by a different era, and by essentially a different women (or man) than the original ‘victim’, and even face a different and much harsher punishment than if he had been tried soon after the original offence.

    Add to the details of that reform: a complete review of ‘child pornography’ standards and glossary of terms used.
    Totally abolish the re-victimization voodoo principle and also only prosecute the distributors (rather than consumers) of REAL child pornography. The current law is hardly fair or just when the inadvertent clicking of even a single manga image (that a femihag or even white-knight ‘expert’ deems to ‘look like’ it might be a depiction of an underage child), in a MAN’s web-browser, could easily see him serve months to YEARS in PRISON, with daily beatings and rape; which the authorities allow and even condone!

  7. Antifeminist:
    These points are all looking like a good start. I especially like the second point about proscribing ‘child protective services’—and I would private vigilante organizations—as criminal enterprises.

  8. Jack:
    No doubt that the mainstream media wouldn’t touch any of these points. And not only that, they’d be demonized if they got any actual currency.

    Right now, a ‘sex crime’ is considered even worse than a terrorist incident. That’s being proven in the case of Frederick Humphreys, now being dragged through media and disgraced for sending pictures of himself without a shirt to a femihag. Humphreys stopped a terror plot to blow up the Seattle Space Needle on New Years’ Eve and foiled another scheme to attack the LA airport. He also killed a major Islamic extremist assassin in a hand-to-hand fight. But that means nothing, because he’s now known to be interested in females!

  9. and as Eric pointed out in a comment yesterday, about MRA blogger ‘Scarecrow’: it is a very effective deterrent! Many are afraid and have good reasons to be.

    I think Eric or Ray pointed out a little while back, that if a blogger like W F Price was labelled ‘pro paedophile’ it could even have consquences for his visitation rights for his children. That could be another reason these divorced father’s rights activists refuse to even mention this subject.

  10. Add to the details of that reform: a complete review of ‘child pornography’ standards and glossary of terms used.
    Totally abolish the re-victimization voodoo principle and also only prosecute the distributors (rather than consumers) of REAL child pornography. The current law is hardly fair or just when the inadvertent clicking of even a single manga image (that a femihag or even white-knight ‘expert’ deems to ‘look like’ it might be a depiction of an underage child), in a MAN’s web-browser, could easily see him serve months to YEARS in PRISON, with daily beatings and rape; which the authorities allow and even condone!

    I intentionally made the manifesto as uncontroversial as possible and a bare minimum that EVERY genuine men’s rights supporter should agree too.

    Of course it was still too much for most ‘mRAs’ at Reddit where I posted it – only recieving a handful of upvotes.

    I agree that a review of ‘child pornography’ is an essential goal, and something that any honest MRA would support (given that current definitions likely criminalize millions of men in Europe and Australia/Canada as subhuman nonces).

    However, as we know, even mentioning the word sends a shudder down the spine of 99% of mRAs.

    I could and should have added something about a review of all existing feminst sex laws that target and criminalize male sexuality.

    We should also consider something like a ‘truth and reconcilliation’ commission which would look at prosecuting femi-hags for any historic Sexual Trade Unionism (if applied fairly, it would be bigger than the Nuremburg trials!).

    I also obviously think it’s important to enshrine the difference between a pre-pubescent child and a sexual being into law. This would involve a re-writing of the UN declaration on the rights of the femihags child.

  11. Antifeminist:
    These points are all looking like a good start. I especially like the second point about proscribing ‘child protective services’—and I would private vigilante organizations—as criminal enterprises.

    Thanks Eric.

  12. While not exactly a manifesto, this very recent post over at AVfM has our friend Human-Stupidity worried that he may be banned from the blog for spamming it. (Read the comments, it could be interesting to see what develops – HS is clearly not happy).
    We did discuss briefly, his last attempt at trying to help them all ‘see the light’ regarding feminist male sexuality laws and of course how he was (and still appears to be again) bashing his head against a brick wall…
    Well, my hat is off to him for at least TRYING, even though he should realize by now that he’s wasting his time there.

  13. These are all sensible items. They show that the “alternative” men’s rights movement is not lacking in ideas. I’m sure Warren Farrell would agree with them, although he wouldn’t include them in his books because the book would then be unpublishable.

    That’s true Jack, and thanks for the approval of the manifesto.

    There are actually some strong arguments and choice of language in Farrell’s books – for example comparing a man being sacked from his job by his boss to a woman being raped (I think he does so in terms of the feminist’s own definition of rape as the loss of power).

  14. I agree with pretty much everything written in the post and the comments.

    I think the United Nations declaration of fundamental human rights, as well as constitutions should include the right to sexual gratification, to buy sexual services and to offer sexual services for money or whatever one wants to barter for.

    I understand that in some Northern European country Social Security pays you 1-2 visits to the sex worker, per year. Any link or detail?

  15. We did discuss briefly, his last attempt at trying to help them all ‘see the light’ regarding feminist male sexuality laws and of course how he was (and still appears to be again) bashing his head against a brick wall…
    Well, my hat is off to him for at least TRYING, even though he should realize by now that he’s wasting his time there.

    He’s been downvoted, but surprisingly he has more supporters than dissenters, but thus far only one commentator has replied to his 3 comments: Paul Elam. Apart from the offensive and shaming language he used in his reply (effectively endorsing the feminist’s ‘pervert’ mantra) I do completely understand what he means especially when he said:

    So here is the deal. I think you should make a choice. Join with us and engage in the very difficult and already controversial subjects covered by this website, or not. But do not think for a moment that I will allow you to pollute the environment here and supply our enemies with the opportunity to add pedophilia and kiddie porn advocacy to the list of their already outrageous allegations.

    That last sentence is so true and I think I am now beginning to understand their fears, however I don’t believe HS is a ‘Creep’ or a pervert, anymore than I believe any other normal MAN is.
    I noted too, that he chose his words a little more carefully than he did when discussing much the same topic with Jay Hammers, but still just as offensive (perhaps libelous) and totally wrong.
    HS doesn’t advocate paedophilia either, he merely points out the widely accepted MISUSE of the feminist defined PC language manipulated meaning of the term!

    Human-Stupidity is one of the few MRAs who at least has the intelligence to not only recognize it as a major men’s issue, he also has the GUTS to publicly say so and attack it…
    His blog is not ‘Creepy’ it’s simply a straight-out, honest and no-holds-barred attack on feminist hatred and paedohysteria, that feminists and THEIR ‘creepy’ allies started and are together, continuing to ramp up.

    He is welcome to comment here of course, but I suppose he doesn’t because he realizes he would effectively, be ‘preaching to the converted’ by doing so.

  16. @Human-Stupidity…

    feminists have already re-defined consent. A 17 year old “child” can not consent to sex. Thus there was no consent. Thus is was rape.

    Impeccable logic.

    I (we) know. You can read NUMEROUS comments from me and many others here discussing that totally ridiculous (with a very evil purpose) feminist PC corrected definition of ‘child’, ‘paedophilia’, ‘pornography’ and many more of their manipulated definitions. One of the most popular topics of this blog actually. Hence the slogan:
    Resisting the Rape of the Male – Feminism as a sexual trade union.

  17. He is welcome to comment here of course, but I suppose he doesn’t because he realizes he would effectively, be ‘preaching to the converted’ by doing so.

    Looks like I spoke too soon!

  18. @Human-Stupidity
    You don’t have to worry about being shamed or called offensive names for expressing your very honest and TRUTHs on this blog – forget AVfM, most of them cannot see the wood for trees, or as Jack would say: they do ‘anything to avoid seeing the elephant in the room’.

    Here we have a much more liberal view and do accept that the ridiculous feminist ‘child’ porn and ‘paedophilia’ / age of consent laws, societal-wide paedohysteria and subsequent witch-hunts, you discuss in depth on your blog; are a MAJOR men’s rights issue, if not THE biggest one.

  19. I see things are heating up in Canada again.

    http://www.counterfem.blogspot.com

    Apparently Warren Farrell was set to give a speech at the University of Toronto but a violent femihag demonstration nearly prevented it.

    I wonder if these were the same Femistasi who attacked the AVfM crew in Vancouver? I’m also wondering if Dr. Ian Kerr was in on the uprising…

    At any rate, no one has anything to fear from soldiers in high heels or female-led Mounties LOL

  20. Eric,
    They weren’t all femihags – mainly young (totally brainwashed beyond hope) feminists with their usual army of (equally as hopelessly indoctrinated) disgusting, piss-ant white-knights and mamginas!
    Did you also read Paul Elam’s summary and advice about it?

  21. Human-Stupidity’s at it again (despite my attempt to steer him away from AVfM – see above).
    He doesn’t seem to understand that they, for various reasons (the best one found in Paul’s reply earlier), simply cannot allow any discussion which could easily be used against them – by the enemy. They are watching that blog like a pack of hungry wolves, just waiting to attack: to KILL!

    He forgets that AVfM is really the PRIME target of feminists and other corrupt, co-opted allies such as the SPLC. Paul Elam (and other AVfM moderators) simply cannot afford to commit suicide as a blogger by even mentioning (dissenting) anything related to ‘paedophilia’ or feminist anti-male sexuality AofC laws etc…

    Sadly, our feminist indoctrinated society, including many AVfM readers and commentators don’t see things the way he does (and the way we do too) and even if they do, it’s not much help.
    The BIG PROBLEM: Paedohysteria. At present, it is an incurable social pandemic and trying to cure it by fighting fire with fire, as HS is trying to, will only aggravate it further!

    In case Paul deletes his most recent replies, here’s a paragraph from one of them:

    Maybe your chiding me and countering me gives you additional alibi against outrageous allegations of supporting sexual freedom of 17 year old children or even younger adolescents. Or the rights of men to watch porn without concern of having an odd 17 year old nude photo in the midst of their collection, which will ruin their lives forever.

    What he says is correct of course, but he might as well have written on a piece of toilet paper and flushed it, for all the good it will do where he posted the comments…

  22. Human-Stupidity’s at it again (despite my attempt to steer him away from AVfM – see above).
    He doesn’t seem to understand that they, for various reasons (the best one found in Paul’s reply earlier), simply cannot allow any discussion which could easily be used against them – by the enemy. They are watching that blog like a pack of hungry wolves, just waiting to attack: to KILL!

    Well I agree Alan, and I understand and accept, as I’ve made clear here, Paul Elam’s wish not have these issues discussed at his site.

    Unfortunately, Human-Stupidity obviously suffers from autism or something similar. He doesn’t seem to possess any capacity whatsoever to predict or understand the behaviour of others as a response to his own behaviour.

    Sorry if this sounds harsh, sometimes words fail me when it comes to his astonishing lack of tactical and interpersonal awareness.

    And I even understand why Elam is creeped out by him. WTF is he trying to achieve? He was even asking W F Price whether he would accept submissions from him.

    Regarding whether it would be suicidal for a site like AVfM to discuss these issues – as I say, I agree to a large extent, however, at the same time, I think the fear is exaggerated.

    Take for example that crowd of young student femi-hags and manginas protesting against Warren Farrell, about as mainstream and inoffensive as MRAs come.

    We’re really saying they would be even more violent and hysterical if they could add ‘paedo aplogists’ to ‘rape apologists’ and all the other shit?

    Maybe white nationalists from StormFront would be there holding hands with the Social Justice crowd, chanting death to the pedo apologists?

    I doubt it somehow.

  23. Regarding whether it would be suicidal for a site like AVfM to discuss these issues – as I say, I agree to a large extent, however, at the same time, I think the fear is exaggerated.

    Agree: highly exaggerated, however I only used that ‘suicide’ metaphor to emphasize that AVfM in particular, seems to be under attack by feminists or worse, horrible white-knights and manginas – manboobz (in alliance with and feeding hate fodder to the SPLC), more than all the other mRA and even MRA blogs.
    Thus Paul probably has to be me a lot more careful than say you, or for that matter: Human-Stupidity himself needs to be, as both of you seem to have flown underneath their normally over-sensitive RADAR, so to speak.

    I don’t think you’re being harsh by saying that about Human Stupidity either, even online and where total anonymity is the norm, basic communication practices and principles such as etiquette, manners, respect, moral judgement and consideration for others, still exist and most commentators observe them as well.

    The opposite of course is true and is expected from feminists, manginas, white-knights, paedocrites and other trolls.

  24. I’d never have thought anyone would be as foolhardy as to broach the subject again in AVfM. I’m not. On the other hand, one possible tactics for a site as AVfM would be to allow such comments to subsequently criticize them and vote them down. In this way the message gets aired but the site cannot be held accountable. As for me, I learnt my lesson. Think that at one point I made a favourable comment about then MRA hero Assange (No upvotes of course). And I even had a mind to break AVfM’s silence about the Eivind Berge case. Had I done so my days on AVfM would have been shorter than they turned out to be.

  25. Thus Paul probably has to be me a lot more careful than say you, or for that matter: Human-Stupidity himself needs to be, as both of you seem to have flown underneath their normally over-sensitive RADAR, so to speak.

    You’re right Alan, and to be fair to Paul Elam, he is using a public identity, and he is no doubt being ‘scrutinised’ already on an individual level after AVfM was placed on the hate list. I’ve even tried explaining this to HS (not to mention that HS lives in Brazil, a much less paedohysteric society still than either America or Europe).

    As regards why myself and HS weren’t put on the hate list, I guess there are 3 possible reasons (it could be one, two or all three of them) :

    1/ Neither of us are American.

    2/ David Futrelle (who no doubt compiled the list for the SPLC) knows that it would be a bad idea to label us as ‘paedo apologists’ in such a manner, given that he himself wrote many articles some years ago that even went further than myself or HS have, even to the point of arguing child rapists who impregnate underage girls should be spared jail, and that there should have been no government regulation of the infamous pornographic ‘news groups’ during the ‘Wild West’ days of the early internet. He knows that I would expose him as the paedocrite, and by his own logic, self-confessed paedophile, with far more vigour than I have already. In fact, it would quickly become an all consuming life-long obsession for me, probably to my last dying breath.

    3/ The SPLC honestly thinks that statements and arguments that have appeared on AVfM, such as that male jurers should never find an alleged rapist guilty, or that beating women is sometimes justified, is worse than the things we argue for, such that men should not go to prison to be raped and beaten for looking at cartoon pictures, or at pictures of women with small breasts.

    Regarding the ‘scrutiny’ that ‘arenas’ such as ours might come under, I would hardly be running a site like this if I was doing anything illegal. Since day one, I’ve been aware that even browsing for legal porn is too risky given the absurdity of feminist laws in the eUSSR, and that even stumbling across a picture of a naked woman with small breasts might be used against me. Even then, it is still risky of course, especially since America’s laws on ‘child porn’ are so much less absurd than ours (ironically). For example, AVfM once advertised a ‘Men’s Rights Magazine’ which had a cover designed by ‘Factory’ composed of a digital representation of ‘the perfect woman’. Of course, because she was perfect, the woman looked about 15 or 16, and was wearing a skimpy bikini, thereby potentially criminalizing as paedophile nonces every single Canadian, European, or Australian visitor to AVfM whose browser displayed the image (however briefly).

  26. Of course, because she was perfect, the woman looked about 15 or 16, and was wearing a skimpy bikini, thereby potentially criminalizing as paedophile nonces every single Canadian, European, or Australian visitor to AVfM whose browser displayed the image (however briefly).

    I confess that made me ‘LOL’ (it’s so ridiculous that it should be perfect material for satire), however not only is it true, it is actually a serious violation of one demographic’s (men and boys) basic liberties and a blatant human-rights abuse.
    For men, simply browsing the Internet could be many times more risky than walking across a busy multi-lane road.

    It is this kind of institutionalized and unabated hatred that makes me at least understand why people like Human-Stupidity are so ‘het-up’ about it and what makes people like him even more frustrated is how almost all men cannot see the HUGE and very visible letters that say so, painted on the wall.

    On the other hand, he should just accept it as we do, that trying to force it onto them simply will not and cannot work, so let it go.

    Feminists are patient, but we’re more patient and are supposedly, smarter too…

  27. Alan & Antifeminist:
    Reading the link HS provided, I have to say that I was deeply disturbed by Paul Elam’s response. He could have said that such topics ‘were off the table’ instead he launched into what seemed to be a declaration that he was perfectly OK with AOC laws and that only ‘creeps’ wanted them lowered.

    As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not a regular AVfM reader, but when Welmer took these took these kinds of topics (and others) off the table I unilaterally withdrew from posting on the Spearhead any further. That’s probably a good tactic for HS to follow. AVfM and the Spearhead are still doing a lot of good; but the first has become too heavily dominated by women and the other, for reasons known only to the moderator has decided to go more ‘mainstream’. HS would probably be better served building his own blog to fill the vaccuum these others are opening rather than trying to post there and have his message sucked down a black hole.

  28. Eric,
    Yes, or as I said above,

    What he says is correct of course, but he might as well have written on a piece of toilet paper and flushed it, for all the good it will do where he posted the comments…

  29. Alan:
    It would have been one thing if Elam had chosen not to discuss the subject because it was off-topic for his blog or for other discretionary reasons. But instead, he almost comes across sounding like Bill O’Reilly or some other paedohysterical pundit.

  30. But instead, he almost comes across sounding like Bill O’Reilly or some other paedohysterical pundit.

    Indeed he does and that’s why our friend HS was just further aggravating it – adding insult to injury (to himself), by continuing to try. I think it’s more to do with HS’s unrelenting persistence that makes Elam think he’s ‘creepy’, more than the actual topics themselves.

    Anyway, I tried in vain to steer him away from there to this blog where he would be free to discuss it ’til the cows come home’…

    However I think he’s trying to get mRA’s to effectively ‘see the light’. He knows we already see things the way he does, thus maybe he thinks discussing it here is not going to serve much purpose i.e. it won’t change the views of (indoctrinated) mainstream MRA’s or anyone else.

    He just needs to be a bit more patient I think.

  31. It is a Great manifesto for Men’s Right Movement Most courageous in its attempt in taking the child sex or the so called pedophilia issue head on to which I would like to add my little perspective.

    The widespread pedophile hysteria that we see in the mainstream media today in my opinion is a International political conspiracy by the Worlds Main Stream Media Corporations and Business Corporates collaborating with the United Nations political class to divert public attention from the greatest of all CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY issue of our time which is the immense suffering violence cruelty on millions of innocent little children resulting in the gruesome death of thousands of them every day by grueling poverty. It is mainly to cover-up this real international children’s issue they make it up as the children sex abuse issue and blaming it entirely on pedophilia making them the easy scapegoat. To give a simple example when there is a alleged child rape claim the mainstream media immediately makes it into furious headlines and keeps regurgitating it for weeks together while there gruesome deaths of thousands of children going on and on every day that never been considered even as news worthy issue at all!

    Finally let me point out some statistics of the real violence cruelty and atrocities, meted on little innocent children and the hidden culprits. The UN world children poverty reports out of 50,000 dying by poverty every day 25,000 are children under the age of 5, being subjected to extreme poverty’. It is mainly due to the RUTHLESS GREED OF THE BIG, RICH BUSINESS CORPORATE HOUSES(THAT INCLUDES THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA) TO MAKE MORE MONEY BY HOOK OR CROOK Including CORRUPTION TO MAXIMIZE THEIR BUSINESS PROFIT, INCOME AND WEALTH at the cost of robbing the lower-class poor which directly results in depriving their children their livelihood grueling poverty sufferings and the horrifying deaths of those innocent children mostly in the developing world, its Governments ruled by the same International Corporate big and rich business interests and the political call”. All these united vested political interests (including feminist) come together in blaming the entire evil doings on the children as the sex abuse rape and the pedophilia thus successfully sabotaging the main issue of the real depravity violence, agony and horrors on millions of innocent little children every day.

  32. and what about male reproductive rights??

    Oh just what we need at this site – another femRA telling us that the only thing that matters for men is an equal right to terminate the responsibilities of bringing life into the world (i.e. validating the wymen’s right to murder her unborn child, whilst ignoring the real issue of millions of men being raped in prison for preferring 17 year old ‘children’ to wymen).

    Now if only I was less ‘sexist’ here, and was more able to treat women like blameless infants, I would have far more femRAs like this enriching the comments section here. Liberalizer was so right.

  33. Does anybody have any speculations as to why prostitution is illegal to begin with?

    And for that matter – why would anybody illegalize pornography too?

  34. For exactly the same reasons as it is now – because both prostitution and pornography provide alternative sexual outlets for men and bring down the price of pussy.

  35. I agree with all these apart from the one about historical crimes.

    ‘A limit of statutations upon all sex crimes. Sex offences are the most subject to the passing hysterias and fads of society, as well as the scope for re-interpretation by individual victims over years and decades. Therefore, it is manifestly wrong to allow the possibility that a man can be judged for a historical offence by a different era, and by essentially a different women (or man) than the original ‘victim’, and even face a different and much harsher punishment than if he had been tried soon after the original offence.’

    Even if it takes years for the victim to speak out (times were different then, people might not have listened to the victim, they might have felt ashamed or scared, or been unaware of what was happening). They should still get some kind of justice. I agree with the fact they should face the same charges as if he had been tried soon after the offence though.

    Apart from that I completely agree, some really interesting points to think about.

    I work in childcare, kids have no male role models and I think its because of the social stigma, peadohysteria as you so rightly put it. Men just don’t want to become childcare practitioners or teachers, even if they’re amazing with kids they just don’t see it as an option for them and its such a shame. Things need to change.

    The people who are convicted are never portrayed as sociopaths, like Saville, they keep going on about how he was a man with infinite resources, who did loads for charity, earned the nations trust blah blah. As though if all men had the resources and means, and were trusted to get in the same places they’d do the same thing, its disgusting. The perpetrators of these crimes had malignant personality disorders at the very least and all shared the same lust for power and lack of empathy. I dunno, its extremely damaging.

    I do think high profile peadophilia cases are being used as a distraction but I don’t like being generalised and blamed for worldwide poverty as suggested in an earlier comment. I’m not just concerned with the children in this country, i’m concerned with children in all countries and its not all feminists speaking out against high profile pedophile cases, infact many right wing newspapers aimed at men are shouting the loudest about these cases so you’re wrong.

    I thought feminism meant equal rights regardless of gender, I believe in equal rights for all. I agree with everything you wrote above, all the issues you face I can empathise with and want to change. I’ve been brought up to fear men. I don’t want that for my kids.

    Women are also punished a lot for their sexuality, in case you haven’t noticed. Maybe if girls sexuality and libido wasn’t so shaming and stigmatised, you wouldn’t have to pay for ‘pussy’ in the first place. (I think prostitution should be legalised by the way).

    It stems from religion I think, being ashamed of your sexuality, its not all down to the equal rights movement and the fault of those nasty feminists wanting equal rights.

    I think its disgusting that male suicide rates are so much higher than women’s, there are so many conflicting expectations of men in society today.
    I can recognise and want to change these problems as a woman, I consider myself a feminist, I thought that was what feminism was, striving for equality.

    Why you so against me I’m all for you?!?!?! Confused.

  36. I agree with all these apart from the one about historical crimes.

    How did this one manage to fly underneath the RADAR?
    Hopefully one of your uniquely appropriate replies is about to be published…

  37. Even if it takes years for the victim to speak out (times were different then, people might not have listened to the victim, they might have felt ashamed or scared, or been unaware of what was happening). They should still get some kind of justice. I agree with the fact they should face the same charges as if he had been tried soon after the offence though.

    Or far more likely: the lure of ‘victim’s compensation’ or other financial reward for fabricating the whole experience, especially since no evidence or even witness testimony is required, is an offer they just cannot turn down. Greedy, sleazy lawyers also strongly encourage ‘victims’ to come forward and get some easy money (at the expense of some unfortunate man), for LYING.
    If you believe these people Lauren Feminist Conway, you probably also believe there is a little fairy that floats around at night looking to buy children’s milk-teeth left on their bedside tables for a small price…
    Oh dear, what am I saying… of course! ‘Children’s’ teeth… That paedophile predator! Let’s get him! The loony British judiciary will be charging him next, but not before adding an extra 30 years to Rolf Harris’s sentence after he inevitably loses his (stacked) appeal…
    Oh and by the way,, feminism has absolutely NOTHING to do with ‘equality’ for anyone, you moron.

  38. The problem, Lauren, is that a “victim speaking out” decades after the fact could (and often is) lying through their teeth, for financial/vindictive/mental illness reasons. If there is no other evidence besides their “word”, there is zero excuse for a man being dragged through the courts, having his reputation ruined and even his freedom taken away, based on nothing other than the words of women. No one can be convicted of any other crime based on words alone – only in “sex” cases is it OK to destroy a man based on nothing but hot air. That is utterly unacceptable, as is automatically referring to someone as a “victim” when they’re quite possibly a liar. You call these people “victims” the moment they open their mouth, it immediately assumes the guilt of whoever they’re accusing. Also UNACCEPTABLE.

  39. Why you so against me I’m all for you?!?!?! Confused.

    Why are you confused? You just proudly stated in the sentence prior to that moronic question:

    I can recognise and want to change these problems as a woman, I consider myself a feminist, I thought that was what feminism was, striving for equality.

    No reason to be confused Lauren, so I repeat: feminism has absolutely NOTHING to do with ‘equality’ for anyone, you moron.
    Assuming you are serious, it’s funny how you over-entitled and privileged, yet jealous man-haters, are always surprised to discover that most men don’t like what feminists do, therefore don’t like feminists either.
    You also said in your comment that the Draconian laws related to ‘historical sex offences’ (that you feminists, all lobbied for and won) are fair, but only if the penalties meted out were the same as what were in force at the time such ‘offences’ were committed, but wonder why the victims of these Draconian laws, i.e MEN don’t like the laws, nor the despicable hags such as you Lauren, who support them.
    Your stupid question simply proves you are indeed, like all feminists: a jealous and UGLY – yes, as in sexually unattractive, moron.

    You are NOT and never will be our friend, or ally, now fuck off!

  40. My male rights extreme but my opinions:

    Girls will be able to consent have once they start their period.

    Men are allowed to actively pursue girls before  menstruation

    Sex ed in 1st grade. Girls can consent to non penetration sex acts

    Boy’s age of consent is 13.

    Girls at 12 can get married and automous adults as long as they stayed married.

    No more retarded babies because women over 35 cannot have kids. Illegal

    Girls can be prostitutes after the first year of their period.

    If a sexual assault case involves the defendant being not guilty the accusers faces 10 years in prison.

    To assault a minor attraction person would be a hate crime.

    “Pedo”, kid diddler, child molester etc are slurs.

    No sex registry.

    Feminism is seen like the KKK.

    Society recongize female prime between 10-19 and male prime 16-55.

    Child porn is legal same restricts for other porn.

    If a man penetrates a girl that hasn’t had puberty he gets a ticket.

    If a girl consents but has “psychological issues” then she will ignored. Being a slut or shamed by feminists are the only reasons a girl regrets.

    A girl can be jailed for lying about sexual partners number.

    A man can opt out of caring for a child.

    Men can marry mutiple girls.

    Divorce can no longer drain men while bitter old women profit.

Comments are closed.