Angry Harry : Looking Up Women’s Skirts

An interesting and very timely new piece from the great Angry Harry :

http://angryharry.com/looking-up-womens-skirts.htm?main

....Sure, it would be highly inappropriate to wonder around the streets peaking surreptitiously up the skirts of passing strangers as they walked up stairs or bent over to pick up things - and unpleasant for the women, I imagine. And it makes some sense for such activities to be illegal.

But 'perverted'?

Nah.

Something is 'perverted' when it is rare, extreme, a gross distortion of what is natural.

It cannot be 'perverted' if it is so common that it is normal.

Goodness me. We don't even call a bank robber 'perverted' - despite the fact that hardly any of us rob banks.

Why?

Well, I presume that this is because while we do not support what a bank robber does, we mostly understand, and can even empathise with, his motives.

His desires!

After all, we all know that most of us would like some extra, easy cash.

So, there is nothing 'perverted' about this desire for more money.

But the really interesting thing is this.

You will surely have noticed that MEN can very often be seen endorsing the view that some kind of sexual activity or desire is 'perverted' when, quite clearly, it is not; a voyeur trying to look at all the naked ladies in the locker room through the keyhole, a young boy playing doctors and nurses with his sister or his cousin, a panty sniffer, a foot fetishist - and goodness knows what other forms of sexual proclivity men are disposed to engage in - mentally or behaviourally....

38 thoughts on “Angry Harry : Looking Up Women’s Skirts

  1. Alan Vaughn

    He's BACK! In even BETTER form too! That is TRUE MRA writing, the KING of the MRM... Nobody does it better than the great man himself. He should be 'Sir Angry Harry'.
    Sometimes I believe there is such a thing as telepathy. I have often talked about someone I haven't seen or heard from in a while then within a few days, or hours sometimes, they suddenly appear.
    Only about 24 hours ago I mentioned that AH hadn't posted any new items, then BINGO! (Maybe my telepathic sense told me this was coming)? You're right: it is timely.
    I hope 'scarecrow' will read that and everything else there too...

  2. inclinedreader

    Having a healthy sexual interest means you do glance at a woman's behind or her cleavage if you find her attractive. You can't escape what your genes, your hormones and your testicles tell you to do. Well, not for long anyway. It is a deeply rooted genetic program that tells you to size up other people for fitness as potential sexual mates.

    As long as it stays within reason (I have my doubts about all-out peeping toms and panty sniffers), I would much more question the sexual mental health of people, especially bystanders, who take offense.

  3. Alan Vaughn

    I would much more question the sexual mental health of people, especially bystanders, who take offense.

    So would I and I think Harry would as well. This is the same mentality of the classic paedocrite that we discuss here so frequently. They call fellow men names such as 'pervert' because like paedocrites: are ashamed of their own similar tendencies (normal sexual desires) and they name & shame others in a childlike attempt to divert attention and scrutiny of others, away from themselves.

    Our society is now obsessed with sex and it is therefore the easiest behaviour others can use as kind of 'weapon' to punish others (MEN) with, especially by other men who have plenty of sexual behaviour they feel 'ashamed' of and therefore feel compelled to hide (even though they have no need to - as AH said, it is normal).

    Paedohysteria is the same dominant narrative or stupid ideology as this nonsense and it was also born from the same pack of feminist lies.
    What we have now, (no) thanks to the tireless social engineering work by the same ideologues, is almost a society that believes homosexuality is the new 'normal' and [male] heterosexuality is now perverted or 'paedophilia'...
    It used to believe that homosexuality was perverted, which to my way of thinking and should be to anyone else, with at least one ounce of common sense: it still is.
    However, that doesn't mean that even they should be persecuted or lynched in the way NORMAL men are today either...

  4. inclinedreader

    What we have now, (no) thanks to the tireless social engineering work by the same ideologues, is almost a society that believes homosexuality is the new ‘normal’ and [male] heterosexuality is now perverted or ‘paedophilia’…

    yes... it used to be there was deliberately no distinction made, mostly by moral conservatives, between homosexuals and people with a sexual interest in young boys (and in some archconservative circles, that paradigm still lives on). And now, homosexuality is A-OK, while heterosexual men have been made to look like they have a latent sexual interest in little girls.

    But homosexuals have paid a high price. Ask any gay man if he has ever had sex with somebody under 18, and he will most likely fall over himself trying to convince you that he would never in a million years be interested. The gay community had to collectively dissociate itself from any such accusations and deny them - disingenuously - in order to be left alone by feminism's abuse hysteria industrial complex. You might say they didn't want to get out of the frying pan, into the fire.

    Interestingly enough, however, there have been studies which suggest that homosexuality is much more closely linked to pedophilia than heterosexuality is. Homosexuals are many times more likely to find prepubescent boys sexually arousing than straight men are likely to have an interest in prepubescent girls. In fact, according to some studies, straight men's sexual interest in children is so low, it's statistically insignificant.

    But we all know how feminists have managed to frame straight men as latent pedophiles. By declaring everybody under 18 a "child". Even if you fantasize about a fully developed full-bosomed 17 1/2-year-old who looks 25, you are a pedo. Feminism hasn't managed to collectively bully straight men into submission the way they have done with the spineless gay community, but feminists sure manage to make men pay the price who stand up against their nonsense.

  5. Alan Vaughn

    IR,

    Interestingly enough, however, there have been studies which suggest that homosexuality is much more closely linked to pedophilia than heterosexuality is. Homosexuals are many times more likely to find prepubescent boys sexually arousing than straight men are likely to have an interest in prepubescent girls. In fact, according to some studies, straight men’s sexual interest in children is so low, it’s statistically insignificant.

    Yep, I've always thought that - good ol' fashioned 'common sense' tells me that it must be so! However, we're dealing with feminism and common sense with that ideology is a chalk and cheese relationship, but somehow, I guess because they are such successful campaigners: they have managed to indoctrinate society to believe (without doubt), everything that should totally defy any semblance of common sense.

    I still think the most classic (in terms of absolute fucking nonsense) is their theory on how 'perverts' looking at 'child porn' images, victimize children and they are re-victimized, each time the photos fall under the gaze of such 'paedophiles'.

    Human-Stupidity talks about it on his blog as being similar to voodoo magic, but I think even that's understating the sheer stupidity of the 'theory', because in voodoo, the person casting the spell has to actually do something with physical objects - something very nasty and violent, whilst uttering numerous satanic or other very evil words; not merely look at an image of someone and think pleasant, (or even unpleasant) thoughts... Most people today regard voodoo as laughable: primitive, superstitious mumbo-jumbo, from some ancient tribal culture, from centuries past.
    Yet nearly everyone including the targets of this large-scale slander witch-hunt: MEN, (even 'MRAs') fully believe it, without question!

    In effect, our 'informed and technically advanced' society is now even more superstitious and IGNORANT than were our witch-hunting inbred ancestors from the 15th and 16th century inquisition!

  6. ray

    He’s BACK! In even BETTER form too! That is TRUE MRA writing, the KING of the MRM… Nobody does it better than the great man himself. He should be ‘Sir Angry Harry’.
    Sometimes I believe there is such a thing as telepathy.

    really? wow thatd be amazing

    more likely he read/heard about you called him the Generalissimo 'n Commandante of the m.r.m. -- doesnt paul elam say "Father of the Men's Movement" or like that?

    ... sho nuff the ole british badger 'merged from his Oppressor Mancave for a quick blurt

    congrats! lured him out w a bit o sweetbread lol

  7. Alan Vaughn

    And I think we'd find that his post had probably been there for sometime prior to me mentioning his apparent quietness to theantifeminist a day or 2 ago, his site all but inactive (as far as new posts were concerned), I only visited his site occasionally therefore didn't know he's posted a new article.

    There was no need for you to be condescending.

  8. theantifeminist

    Post author

    After reading Harry’s latest post, I watched his video, which I haven’t seen before, on rape accusations…

    That's a great video - it's a shame Harry didn't/doesn't make more videos.

  9. theantifeminist

    Post author

    As long as it stays within reason (I have my doubts about all-out peeping toms and panty sniffers), I would much more question the sexual mental health of people, especially bystanders, who take offense.

    If I'm walking down the street and a nubile female is wearing see through leggings or micro-shorts that reveal over half of her arse I'm going to take a look.

    If she went out dressed like that to get looks from just a 1% demographic of the male population that I don't fit into, it's tough.

    I see your point about the full-time voyeurs and peeping-toms and panty sniffers, but I guess most of these men would be of the type who would find it difficult to even approach let alone fuck beautiful females, either through lack of looks/status, or through some mental health problem such as extreme social anxiety. If a man would rather sniff a girl's panties or spy on her undressing than fuck her than I guess we are talking genuine perversion, but still not in the same sense as say, somebody who only gets turned on by sheep's rear ends, or by 5 year old toddlers.

    BTW, I remember sleeping in a backpacker's dormitory somewhere in Europe quite a few years ago. A fat sweaty American dude was in the bunk bed below mine. He introduced himself to me as David, claiming to be a writer from Chicago. The other set of bunk beds were occupied by a young Australian couple - with the young woman being very good looking. That night I was woken up by the fat American coming back, obviously a little drunk. The Australians were still out at a club or whatever. I don't think the American guy realised I was there. I saw him standing by the Australian woman's bunk and saying 'shall I...shall I'. before suddenly picking out a pair of dirty panties from her laundry bag and having a good sniff. I coughed loudly and he fumblingly put the panties back and raced to his bunk bed and pretended to go straight to sleep.

  10. Alan Vaughn

    He introduced himself to me as David, claiming to be a writer from Chicago.

    His last name wasn't 'Futrelle' by any chance was it?

  11. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Interestingly enough, however, there have been studies which suggest that homosexuality is much more closely linked to pedophilia than heterosexuality is. Homosexuals are many times more likely to find prepubescent boys sexually arousing than straight men are likely to have an interest in prepubescent girls. In fact, according to some studies, straight men’s sexual interest in children is so low, it’s statistically insignificant.

    Well argued points IR and Alan, but please bear in mind that as a British blogger I can be jailed for 7 years for merely publishing links to studies that suggest that, so I'd rather we avoid straight out (no pun intended) discussion of it (there is no doubt, as I have argued, that homosexuals throughout history, up until de-criminalization, were 'paeophile's, but there are a number of cultural reasons to explain it. I agree, as I have stated recently, that homosexuals did sell their cultural soul to feminists in order to win their 'freedom' and 'equality'.

  12. Alan Vaughn

    That reminded me of a scene in that classic 70's TV sci-fi series 'Planet of the Apes', where the humans were walking with a couple of their gorilla friends through the ruins of 21st century New York (I think - some US city) and they reveal a poster on a window advertising a circus.
    It depicted a trainer in the ring with a gorilla doing tricks etc. while the people in the audience were all laughing.
    The 2 gorilla friends went ape-shit (pun intended) and immediately destroyed the poster, refusing to believe it was possible that humans were once 'superior' to apes.
    I think the apes even told them that such dissent and spreading LIES about the history of apes, was normally punishable by death!

    If you replaced those apes with femihags and feminists, it would be an accurate depiction of their totalitarian utopia...

  13. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I think even somebody from Amnesty International admitted this week that the UK now has less freedom than certain Middle-Eastern autocratic states such as Bahrain.

  14. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I decided to change the theme because now I'm getting far more comments than previously, and I think this theme gives comments a little more space and it's easier on the eye. Tell me if you disagree.

    Also, would people prefer comments to be arranged in nested threads (as they are currently), or simply one appearing after the other with the oldest at the top (as in The-Spearhead)?

  15. Alan Vaughn

    I like it, especially the nested threads, however the blockquotes looked a lot better in the italic font with a gap above and below.

  16. Alan Vaughn

    Also, can you format it so the commentator's name is in bold or even a different coloured text?
    Other than that, it's a big improvement! What I like most is how the recent comments and everything else that was only on the homepage is now on all pages.

  17. theantifeminist

    Post author

    What about this theme?

    That one I just tried didn't allow you to customise it - unless you fiddled with the PHP yourself, which I know enough to do, but it's very time consuming.

  18. Alan Vaughn

    Yes this one's ok, but there's no longer REPLY to individual commentators, so you'd have to do write: @[commentator name] every time and probably need to quote his words.

  19. Ian B

    TAF, the new theme is a vast improvement over the old black one. The posts and comments are much more readable; the old one was a real strain on the eyes.

    Also, I think single-threading of comments is better, as the multi-threading before "bottomed out" at three levels and got very confusing.

    Great improvement.

  20. inclinedreader

    I still think the most classic (in terms of absolute fucking nonsense) is their theory on how ‘perverts’ looking at ‘child porn’ images, victimize children and they are re-victimized, each time the photos fall under the gaze of such ‘paedophiles’.

    well here in Germany, they managed to do it one better still. In 2009 in the run-up to the last general election, we had a very shrill campaign by German feminists and child abuse hysteria profiteers to censor the World Wide Web by means of (ineffective and easily circumventable) DNS access blocking. Ostensibly, of course, they only wanted to block child pornography, but it goes without saying that that would have opened the floodgates to wholesale Web censorship (and many other non-related interest groups also already had plans in their drawers to piggyback the measure, once implemented).

    Well anyway, one of the more bizarre arguments for child porn DNS blocking was the "Anfixthese"; succinctly put, the junk science theory that merely viewing child pornography, by which to be fair they did mean prepubescent children and infants, would get any viewer hooked on child porn and turn him into a pedophile who would from then on like a zombie scour the Internet for more material to feed his newfound addiction, possibly even commit sex crimes against children in the real world.

    That wasn't even voodoo science. It made voodoo science look like legit peer-reviewed research.

    Just goes to show how batsh*t crazy feminists can get. Thankfully, although passed, the law was suspended and later repealed due to public pressure.

  21. Alan Vaughn

    IR

    That wasn’t even voodoo science. It made voodoo science look like legit peer-reviewed research.

    LOL! I know I shouldn't be, because even though it's totally absurd (and why I L'dOL) it's true...! God help us!

    They don't need any proof about anything they say (let alone something that they couldn't possibly provide, such as peer-reviewed research), because the PC law (that they drafted, fought for and continue to POLICE), says they MUST be believed by everyone, because women (feminists and man-hating lesbians that protect children, even when they HATE children) NEVER lie!

  22. inclinedreader

    They don’t need any proof about anything they say (let alone something that they couldn’t possibly provide, such as peer-reviewed research), because the PC law (that they drafted, fought for and continue to POLICE), says they MUST be believed by everyone, because women (feminists and man-hating lesbians that protect children, even when they HATE children) NEVER lie!

    in some ways, it's very much the modern equivalent of heresy and the threat of being burned at the stake and eternal damnation.

    And it's every bit as hypocritical as the Catholic Church back in the days when it had the power to take your life if you denied the existence of its god. Feminists nowadays want the unabridged right to kill fetuses growing inside their bodies, but once a child is born, somehow feminists go apeshit and no harebrained draconian law is too strict to "protect" children. Collective abortion guilt, maybe?

  23. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @IR

    by which to be fair they did mean prepubescent children and infants, would get any viewer hooked on child porn and turn him into a pedophile who would from then on like a zombie scour the Internet for more material to feed his newfound addiction, possibly even commit sex crimes against children in the real world.

    Absolute junk science (assuming they're even pretending that there is ANY 'science' to support that claim).

    Seems to me to make more sense that turning even pictures of 25 year old women with small breasts into 'child porn' will more likely lead to the normal male sexual desire for nubile females into something perverted. I mean there must be thousands if not millions of men who've stumbled upon (or intentionally looked for) young teenage porn, then felt like ' a peadophile' (which is what the femi-hags pretend that they are), and then decided to look next time at pics of pre-pubescent children. Furthermore, because even pictures of 17 year olds are classified as illegal child porn, any sites that show such pictures are obviously illegal, and hence might be likely to also show perverted pictures of pre-pubescents and toddlers.

    I don't know how 'child porn' is graded in germnay, but here in the UK feminists have succeeded in classifying the degree of seriousness with no mention whatsoever of age. A picture of a 17 year old girl in a sexy bikini is in the same band (level 1) as a picture of a naked 3 year old with her legs apart.

    It's hardly surprising that, for example, the sexual rape and murder of infants in a country like Spain is very rare, but here in the UK it's an annual pagan rite. In Spain, despite all the paedohysteria propaganda, you will still see bricklayers wolf-whistling at sexy 14 year olds walking past etc.

  24. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Yes this one’s ok, but there’s no longer REPLY to individual commentators, so you’d have to do write: @[commentator name] every time and probably need to quote his words.

    It seems to me that most people did that already Alan. I'll see if I can customise this theme, also I'll wait to see what our other loyal and esteemed regular contributers such as Eric, Deano, Jack, IR, Ray, Highwayman etc think about it.

    @Ian - thanks for your thought on the new theme btw.

  25. Ian B

    I'd stick with the single threadng, TAF; most blog comment sections do. It's really straightforward and avoids segregation between particular elements of the discussion.

    Anyway, I see that the mutaween have now arrested Dave Lee Travis. Should we start a lottery on who will be next? Noel Edmonds? "Kid" Jensen? Paul Burnett? Andy Peebles? Pete Murray?

    Perhaps they should just arrest everyone from the pre-PC era, to save time.

  26. inclinedreader

    Absolute junk science (assuming they’re even pretending that there is ANY ‘science’ to support that claim).

    Interestingly, the campaign was spearheaded by the former femiservative German Minister of Family Affairs, a medical doctor (with a degree in public health!!) turned council politician - turned federal minister. She was also the one who came up with that crazy idea in the first place that child porn gets unsuspecting straight people hooked. She proved time and again during her campaign that she had not even a penny's worth of knowledge about the World Wide Web and DNS access blocking (and apparently the same can be said about her understanding of sexual medicine), and she was spurred on by American child protection charities that promised her a cakewalk re-election by running on a child abuse platform. It backfired woefully in the end, and the resulting access blocking law became such an embarrassment that it was suspended right the day it came into effect, and repealed about a year later.

    I don’t know how ‘child porn’ is graded in germnay, but here in the UK feminists have succeeded in classifying the degree of seriousness with no mention whatsoever of age. A picture of a 17 year old girl in a sexy bikini is in the same band (level 1) as a picture of a naked 3 year old with her legs apart.

    well we still have the distinction between "child pornography" and "youth pornography". A child being a person under 14, and a youth somebody between 14 and 17. Child pornography, i.e. production, possession, procurement and distribution is completely illegal, while youth pornography (illegal since 2008) has a "private use" exception. Two youths under 18 can take sexual pictures of each other legally, provided they don't show them to anybody. That is, not ever. And also, it still means a 19-year-old can potentially go to jail for filming himself having sex with his willing 17-year-old girlfriend. And this law has created many other pitfalls, especially concerning the problem when somebody looks under 18 but isn't.

  27. Eric

    The new format seems easy to follow. Probably unlike a lot of other people, I generally read comments from the last to the first anyway! LOL

    Good to see Angry Harry is back!

  28. Alan Vaughn

    @theantifeminist

    It seems to me that most people did that already Alan. I’ll see if I can customise this theme, also I’ll wait to see what our other loyal and esteemed regular contributers such as Eric, Deano, Jack, IR, Ray, Highwayman etc think about it.

    You're right - I'll soon get used to it and Ian's point about a single (descending) thread does make things easier to follow. Simply scroll to the bottom of any article to see the latest comments - much easier!

  29. Alan Vaughn

    @Eric
    "Good to see Angry Harry is back!"
    It is indeed, however I said a bit more about it, as it really 'made my day': Angry Harry is by far my favorite MRA - he's the 'Original'! See the very first comment (at the top), but was ridiculed for it by another regular commentator here.

    However, now I can't find his reply to me, although my response to his condescending remark is still there...

    Perhaps it was accidentally deleted when theantifeminist changed the format?

  30. ray

    “Good to see Angry Harry is back!”
    It is indeed, however I said a bit more about it, as it really ‘made my day’: Angry Harry is by far my favorite MRA – he’s the ‘Original’! See the very first comment (at the top), but was ridiculed for it by another regular commentator here.

    someone made fun of Angryharry?

    that is WAY out of line, no wonder you censored it

    what an asshole that guy must be, huh?

    However, now I can’t find his reply to me, although my response to his condescending remark is still there…

    Equality!

    Perhaps it was accidentally deleted when theantifeminist changed the format?

    perhaps Vice President Biden will join the MRA?!

  31. Alan Vaughn

    perhaps Vice President Biden will join the MRA?!

    Why don't YOU join it Ray, instead of mocking it?

  32. theantifeminist

    Post author

    someone made fun of Angryharry?

    that is WAY out of line, no wonder you censored it

    what an asshole that guy must be, huh?

    However, now I can’t find his reply to me, although my response to his condescending remark is still there…

    Equality!

    @Ray - I realise your post was likely intended to be light hearted, but it did come across somewhat as being mocking to both Angry Harry and Alan, and Alan certainly took it that way.

    I kept Alan's response up because he was entitled to make a response given that when I got out of bed yesterday morning your comment had already been up for a few hours.

    But let's not develop this into another pointless men's rights feud between yourself and Alan over absolutely nothing, eh? (I'm addressing this equally to Alan).

    I value your comments here Ray and you've been a welcome and much needed addition here. The only things I tend to censor are feminists (they own 99.9% of the internet already), readers comments that might send me to a British gynocratic gulag, or distracting back and forth feuds between readers that serve absolutely no purpose.

    I've put your original comment back up because Alan referred to it again and otherwise people (including Harry if he's reading) might think it was worse than it was (and reading it again I see that it was nothing really).

  33. Alan Vaughn

    @Eric
    Yes, just like her white colleague and age peer Hillary, (both teens during the late 60's to mid 70's), they both followed the fashion trends of the era. For women it generally meant anything that revealed a lot of leg (or the entire legs including part of their arses), a lot of cleavage, or a lot of both; or even their entire bodies. I.e. totally sheer (see-through) fabrics and if they wore sheer clothes, normally the tiniest panties of contrasting colour were worn under them (so they can be clearly seen) and no bra!

    In the UK, 'paedophiles' such as Jimmy Savile would have been surrounded by hundreds of girls aged between 13 and 23 so attired, but NOW he was a filthy pervert for finding it sexy and being sexually interested in 'children' who were effectively (knowingly and deliberately) 'dressed for sex'...

    These photos of Hillary and Michelle, both confirm the sexual trade union theory is not just a theory. It is based in solid evidence and facts, such as the most vocal, bitter and jealous femihags of today were themselves: attractive, little prick-teasers when they were young.
    Now that they have grown into middle-aged femihags: they are bitter and JEALOUS of today's attractive and sexy little prick-teasers.

  34. ray

    I realise your post was likely intended to be light hearted, but it did come across somewhat as being mocking to both Angry Harry and Alan

    lighthearted yes, but mocking to a.h.? where is that part? "ole british badger" is hatespeech?

    ... go ahead and check, i'll wait right here while you find the mockery quotes

    now, i WAS mocking alan vaughn for his overtop accolades. . . and now i'm mocking him again, for being so arrogant as to demand i "join the mrm"

    i dont recall demanding that you folks join or dont join anything, yes? i respect your self-agencies, and dont make accusations about the conduct of your lives, or attempt to shame you into choices

    look i have plenty to do, i'll say what i wish, when i wish, i'll mock anybody i want, if thats no good and is too offensive it's fine, i'm out and will say offensive stuff elsewhere! lol

    cheers

  35. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Look at this video of a guy being caught recording up a woman's skirt in a supermarket :

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=285_1381607011

    Or rather, read the comments underneath. I have to admit, some of them are hilarious :

    "good spot by security......they are usually too busy looking at women's tits and arses"

    "In Junior High we'd put mirrors in our shoe laces... you can guess the rest, options are unlimited"

    "What a pervert!!! Ok, so where can I see the video"

    "leave this to us japanese. we mastere this technique"

    "what really pisses me off is that I have never thought of this before!"

    (halagahwani11) "I think he has never heard of internet porn."

    "@halaghawani11 How do you think these kind of videos get on the Internet (upskirt shots)... Someone has to do it."

    Now of course, if the girl had been a 17 year old 'child' people would be screaming paedophile and calling for him to be castrated. There would be no 'sick perv...now where can I see the video' type jokes, that everyone would understand. Compare the comments to that video to the LiveLeak video I posted here of the 16 year old girl calling for a lowering of the age of consent.

    When it comes to looking up (adult) women's skirts, it seems that even though the police and feminsts use the word 'pervert', most men can admit that if it wasn't for morality, and of course the law, we would probably all secretly like to see up the skirts of every attractive woman we passed in the street. The guy in this video is not really a 'pervert' but just either an idiot or a scumbag. But when it comes to being attracted to teenage girls, which should be even more obviously normal male sexuality, it seems it's a lot harder to admit even on a largely anonymous site like LiveLeak. I wonder if this is simply because paedohysteria is a notch or two above the rest of sex hysteria? Perhaps all that is required is more people admitting the obvious, and a tipping point will be reached. At least then society could have a rational discussion over issues such as the age of consent and definitions of child abuse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>