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.