It is rather odd in the extreme, that the more absurd and draconian feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws and punishments become, the less the Men’s Rights Movement is willing to consider them as men’s rights issues. 100 years ago, and men who had sex with 14 year old girls were only prosecuted if the girl claimed she had been ‘seduced’. Yet Ernest Belfort Bax – the first MRA in history – felt this was enough to make it a serious men’s rights issue. 25 years ago, and only men who had sex with pre-pubescent girls had the book thrown at them by the legal system, and yet David Thomas – the first modern men’s rights author – felt this was enough to devote almost an entire chapter to in his classic men’s rights work ‘Not Guilty : The Case In Defence of Men’. 15 years ago, and punishments for looking at illicit child porn images were typically only a caution or a few months in prison, whereas now people are being sent down for years and then put on the sex offender’s register for life. Yet Angry Harry – the founder of the online men’s rights movement – still felt it important to raise the issue of such feminist ‘thought crimes’ as a men’s rights issue.
Ernest Belfort Bax is recognized as the first ‘MRA’ in history. Writing in Edwardian and Victorian England, the prolific Bax was a philosopher, socialist, literary critic, and free love advocate, as well as the first writer to discuss at length discrimination against men by an increasingly feminist society.
In a short essay entitled ‘The Monstrous Regiment of Womanhood‘ – he expounds an argument that modern MRAs, and especially the Honey Badgers, would certainly recognize :
But the most atrocious instances of sex-privilege occur in
connection with the Criminal Law Amendment Act
of 1885. Whilst the abduction of a girl under
eighteen, or the seduction of one under sixteen,
involves the man concerned in serious penalties, the
girl or the woman gets off scot free, and this even
though she may have been the inciting party. This
is carried to the extent that a young boy of fourteen
may be himself induced to commit a sexual offence
by a girl just under sixteen — that is to say, nearly
two years his senior — and he can be sentenced to
imprisonment, followed by several years in a re-
formatory, whilst the law holds the inciting girl
absolutely guiltless. The villainy of such an enact-
ment is unparalleled, more particularly when one
considers that a girl approaching sixteen is often
practically a woman, whilst a boy of fourteen is
seldom more than a child.
However, it is clear from other writings of Bax, that his objection to the feminist age of consent was not merely its discriminatory application in relation to the double standard. Like most anti-feminists of the time, he regarded the feminist raising of the age of consent as a blackmailer’s charter. For example in another essay of 1908 entitled ‘Ernest Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics’, he writes :
That the present “Votes for Women” movement is only a phase of the anti-man crusade which Feminism has been carrying on for nigh two generations past with the aid of the Press, is shown, not only by the persistent efforts to represent “ man-made laws “ as unjust to women, but by the incidental remarks of Suffragette leaders in which the sex animus is shown, no concealment being made of the intention to use the suffrage for rivetting on man the chains of legalised female oppression. For example, Mrs. Pankhurst recently represented one of the functions of emancipated “Womanhood” to be the handing over of the luckless male to the Female blackmailer by raising the “age of consent” above sixteen!! The allusion made at the same time to the “daughters of the working class “ is a piece of demagogy too thin to deceive anyone as to the venomous sex-spite animating this outrageous proposal.
Elsewhere, in the essay ‘Problems of Man, Mind and Morals’, he mocks the feminist obsession with raising the age of consent, and points out the absurdity involved in simultaneously claiming that teenage girls need protecting from the sexual advances of men AND that girls are mature enough to be given the vote :
If there is one demand which is popular with the Feminists, it is for raising the age of consent from sixteen to eighteen or twenty-one years,at which latter age, presumably, the right to the Franchise, if conceded, would come into operation. They are therefore evidently of opinion that the woman who has only just ceased to need the protection of the law in the control of her own body becomes immediately fully qualified to have a voice in the management of public affairs!
In his classic work ‘The Fraud of Feminism‘, published in 1913, he similarly refers to it as ‘that favourite crank of the feminists’ :
“That favourite crank of the Feminist, of raising the age of consent with the result of increasing the number of victims of the designing young female should speak for itself to every unbiased person.”
I have still only read a handful of his numerous works, but there is no doubt that these quotes demonstrate that Bax, like every anti-feminist of the period, was opposed to the feminist raising of the age of consent. It had been raised from 13 to 16 in the 1885 Criminal Amendment Act, after years of lobbying from the feminist dominated ‘Social Purity Movement’. The act also criminalized prostitution and made homosexuality a crime punishable by death. It was based on a feminist/tabloid engineered moral panic over the myth of ‘white slavery’ – young teens being trafficked into forced prostitution. Feminists have always had the same modus operandi. Furthermore, it can be argued that the age of consent was the feminist’s original rasion d’etre (and still is today) – hence the comments by Bax on their obsession with it.
Victorian feminists/suffragettes did not originally campain for the vote as an end in itself – they had already been lobbying for anti-male sex laws, such as raising the age of consent, and started to demand the vote as a means to obtaining those ends. There is probably no single law that is more ‘feminist’ than the age of consent. There is almost certainly no single feminist law that has ruined the lives of more men and boys than the age of consent (of 16/18). Yet MRAs today are so stupid and/or cowardly, that they denounce any other MRA who question it as being ‘feminist infiltrators’.
David Thomas published ‘Not Guilty : The Case in Defence of Men’, in 1993, possibly the first modern work making the case for men’s rights. Like Bax, he wasn’t afraid to present arguments that today would have gotten him denounced and slandedred as a ‘pedo acceptance advocate’ by the Honey Badger guardians of the contemporary
Good Men Project Men’s Rights Movement.
Whilst reading the passages below, keep in mind that the author was a father, arguing mainly from the perspective that this early paedohysteria was a feminist attack upon fathers and the family, as well as male sexuality in general. Notice that the chapter almost assumes without needing to state explicitly that any intelligent person reading, with a support for men’s rights and a distaste in radical feminism, would agree upon a definition of sexual abuse involving only the forced penetration of a child by an adult. It is to be noted that today’s MRAs, more often incels and MGTOWs rather than ‘father’s rights activists’, cannot even tolerate discussion of a man being jailed as a ‘paedophile’ for bringing a 17 year old ‘child’ to orgasm as a men’s rights issue, or even men being jailed for looking at pictures of 25 year old women with ‘small breasts’ under feminist ‘child porn’ laws.
“….By then an unlikely alliance of anti-family and anti-patriarchy ideologues, fundamentalist religious fantasists and misguided media celebrities, ever eager for a bandwagon upon which to jump, had managed to persuade the nation that one in three children suffered from sexual abuse administered by men. What they tended not to reveal was that their conclusions were a deliberate twisting of research which defined abuse in an extremely general sense. Far from it consisting exclusively of the forcible intercourse which most of us tend to imagine, however disgustedly, in these circumstances, the term was applied to any unwanted sexual experience of any kind. Any little girl who had seen a flasher in the park had, by that definition, been abused. Any little boy whose maths teacher had put his hand on his knee had been abused.
Penetration by a penis formed a small proportion of total cases of abuse. Of those cases, many occured between step-fathers and teenage daughters. Of the rest, most involved vaginal, rather than anal penetration. Only a minute fraction within a fraction comprised the activity alledged by the doctors at Cleveland, to wit, the anal penetration of small boys and girls by their fathers.
In my view, the obsessive search for evidence of such perverse behaviour tells you more about the people doing the searching than it does about those being searched. But, lest anyone doubt the harm that such obsession may bring, let me quote from a letter that was published in the Solicitors’ Family Law Association Newsletter, November 1991. It was written by a lawyer, whose name and gender were not revealed, although I presume from the account given in the letter that she is female.
“I was sexually abused over a period of approximately two and a half years by a male near relative who had been adopted into my mother’s family. The sexual abuse has, so far as I am aware, had little discernible effect upon me. The discovery of the sexual abuse and the trauma of the investigation by professionals have had a profound impact upon me.
When Esther Rantzen introduced her Childline, with the attendant television programmes, I watched, and found to my shock, that the description by one of the participants of the medical examination she had following the discovery of sexual abuse caused me to cry uncontrollably.
I will never forget the ordeal I was put through at the age of seven. I will never forget the feelings of shame, degradation and intense physical invasion when examined by a paediatrician. I have no doubt that the same paediatrician would, if questioned, have stressed the consideration, tact, and understanding he showed to me on examination.
My views were not sought as to whether I should be examined. I doubt if I would have had the knowledge or understanding to express or hold my own views. In retrospect, of course, I have strong views, but those are formed only with the knowledge of hindsight. I was seven : these were ‘grown ups’ who knew best what should be done with me.
How much needless suffering is caused by children who have been sexually abused by the professionals?…In my own view, the sexual abuse I suffered, was to quote a judge in a rape trial, ‘a pretty tepid affair’. The subsequent sexual abuse I suffered at the hands of a paediatrician will live me for the rest of my life.”
Later in the same Chapter, David Thomas continues :
“It is generally agreed that a child who is compelled to have sex with an adult against his or her own will suffers lasting damage. Certainly that would be a common-sense view, and one with which, as a parent, I would instinctively agree. In August 1992, however, the New Statesman published a special issue devoted to opinions that were politically incorrect. One of its articles, by Edward Barrie, suggested that the after-effects of sexual activity might be less traumatic to children than had previously been supposed. In particular, he said :
“An enormous investigation was carried out for the German police by Dr. Michael Baurmann, who reported his findings in 1983. His team carefully assessed 8,058 young people of both sexes (more girls than boys) involved in illegal sexual relationships. They found that in many cases no harm was done – neither emotional nor physical. About 1,000 boys under the age of 14 took part in the study, and not one of those was found to have been harmed. Harm to the girls, when it occurred, was sometimes (not always) a result of the sex act itself, and sometimes the result of heavy-handedness by police, parents and others in the aftermath. Bauermann has shown conclusively that a child may well become a victim purely because victimisation is expected. More recent police department follow-up studies have confirmed the findings.”
Those findings, astounding though they seem at first glance, tally with the experiences of the solicitor whose letter about her experiences of abuse that I reproduced earlier in the chapter. They make me question whether the important social issue which both British and American society needs to confront is not abuse itself, but our apparent obsession with it.
Barrie remarks : “Perhaps most sinister of all, a young woman university graduate working on a doctoral thesis and pursuing the ‘harm done’ aspects of abuse, with help from….overseas experts, was denied a grant unless she came up with findings that would help the authorities ‘detect peadophiles’. She found this distortion of her views unacceptable.”
At this point the truth is clouded with exaggeration and confusion that one cannot do anything other than speculate about what is really going on. But when celebrities que up to reveal ever more lurid accounts of their childhood experiences, or publicise abuse helplines, the sickness to which they bear witness may just be the profound suspicion with which the Anglo-Saxon world regards sex. That, and the belief that the quickest route to public approval is to label oneself a victim – even if one happens to be a millionaire rock star, or a candidate for the presidency.
Consider, specifically, the determination with which some women seek to paint a picture of rampant sexual abuse, practiced entirely by men. Is this motivated by an altruistic desire to cure a social malaise, or just a fearful hostility towards male sexuality as a whole? Are they simply projecting their own terror onto children? Is there anything to choose between the dysfunction that causes an adult to seek out sex with children, and the dysfunction that persuades a doctor or social worker that she is surrounded, on every side, by a raging sea of sex abuse?”
Angry Harry was and always will be, however much Paul ‘Ego’ Elam resents it, the founder of the online men’s rights movement. Although Harry was a conservative (libertarian), and made it clear that he was broadly in favour of the present age of consent, on multiple occasions he also made clear that he felt sentences were too harsh, feminist definitions such as ‘child rape’ for ‘consensual sex’ inflated and misleading, and above all, that paedohysteria was an expression of anti-male hatred. As I pointed out recently, he also crticised feminist child porn laws, referring to them as ‘thought crimes‘.
Most importantly of all, Angry Harry was vehmenently opposed to the billion dollar feminist abuse industry, a money making monster that first Paul Elam and then the ‘Honey Badgers’ have all happily validated and sought a piece of the financial cake in through the sexual victimization of boys and men.
The organism has become a monster, and it is feeding off the broken lives that it, itself, is creating. The abuse industry needs to be cut down to size so that it only has the wherewithal to deal with serious cases of abuse. As with most things in life, it is all a question of balance.
And the laws and the various definitions also need adjustment so that innocent people – and also those who have not done anything seriously bad – are not dragged through such a horrible mill.
Once again, it is all a question of balance.
In particular, Angry Harry repeatedly warned of the dangers of victim labelling, especially young children, and telling them that they will be damaged for life as a result of their ‘abuse’. This is the opposite of what Paul Elam, Hannah Wallen et al. are doing. In fact, Paul Elam and Angry Harry publicly fell out over this issue and Harry was only saved from being booted out of the movement he created because Elam reluctantly had to accept that the rest of the MRM would not allow such treatment of a figure loved and respected by everybody (I’m not sure if 90% of the current ‘MRAs’ even know who Angry Harry was).
Of course, victims of abuse – children or adults – might be horrendously damaged by their various ordeals, but when those in the abuse industry make blanket pronouncements suggesting that all cases of ‘abuse’ lead inevitably to significant permanent psychological harm, then they are talking absolute nonsense and damaging the most vulnerable victims in the process.
Most unwanted sexual abuse, for example, is probably a bit like having a car accident of some sort.
It might cause long term permanent damage – e.g. a major road crash – or virtually nothing at all – e.g. a minor scratch on the hood.
Most acts of ‘abuse’ as currently defined by those working in the abuse industry are, like most car accidents, relatively trivial. It is those working in the abuse industry who always try to make matters sound far worse in order to gain extra funding – and also in order to demonise men.
And, in doing this, not only does it damage people’s relationships, it causes significant harm to victims of both serious and trivial ‘abuse’.
Harry actually wrote countless articles on this subject and usefully collected them all through an image banner link in his sidebar. Oddly, I can’t see that anymore anywhere on his site. As his partner appears to have unwisely given ownership of his site to Paul Elam, I sincerely hope no acts of revisionism have taken place.
We’ve seen that discussions on the validity of feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws, which are now completely taboo in the Men’s Rights Movement, were seen as almost taken for granted as mens’ rights issues by..
The first Men’s Rights Activist Ernest Belfort Bax.
The first Men’s Rights author of the modern period David Thomas.
The founder of the online men’s rights movement Angry Harry.
So how has it come about, not much more than a decade or so after Angry Harry first went online and set in motion the explosive growth of the modern men’s rights movement, that it is now completely taboo to even refer to feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws as men’s rights issues, except in relation to the problem of false accusations?
One figure looms large – Paul Elam. A person who admitted spending a significant proportion of donations received at AVoiceforMen on lavishly furnishing his home, Elam now makes a living off of the back of his MRA validation of the feminist child abuse industry by working as a psychological counselor for men. The fact that he recently referred to Eivind Berge as ‘a nutter’ – a man who the Norwegian authorities tried and failed to have declared insane for his men’s rights beliefs – shows just how much expertise he actually has in the field of male mental health (or real ‘men’s rights’). The MRM was little more than a personal vanity project for Elam. He even tried to rebrand it, Good Men Project style, as the ‘Men’s Human Rights Movement’ to distance himself from the 100 years that had gone before from Bax to Harry, to make it his own and to make it acceptable to feminists, and especially, the billion dollar feminist abuse industry. When that failed, he ‘sexed up’ the movement by employing wave after wave of middle-aged femiservative staff who quickly became known as the ‘Honey Badgers’.
Since Elam semi-retired in order to coin it in as a male ‘therapist’, the Honey Badgers have been left in virtual control of the MRM. As you would expect, these middle-aged women who feel betrayed by feminism for allowing their husbands to divorce them for younger females, will not countenance any attempts by ‘pedo acceptance advocates’ to speak about the age of consent, or to raise the issue of a million men being on the sex offenders register in the USA alone, increasingly officially classed as Untermenschen. Their only concession is to allow MRAs to campaign for adding a few thousand horny female teachers onto the register, and thereby validate both the feminist age of consent, and the feminist billion dollar sex abuse industry.
More broadly, the center of power in the MRM has shifted from its historical home of London to the puritanical USA. Ernest Belfort Bax, David Thomas, and Angry Harry were all British, and all based (at least for a time) in London. Not to compare myself to these greats, but if you are convinced by my arguments here that inflated feminist ‘child sex abuse’ laws are fundamental to men’s rights issues, as the first MRA, the first modern MRA author, and the founder of the online MRM all clearly felt they were, then there is also an argument to be made that I am the last MRA – also British and formerly based in London – at least in that line. The last MRA (along with Eivind Berge, Steve Moxon (also British), Scarecrow and a handful of others) who can recognize that any feminist law that harms men is a men’s rights issue.
As I mentioned earlier in this article, in the early days of the modern men’s rights movement, opposition to discussion of the age of consent etc. would come almost entirely from the father’s rights faction who, along with Harry, built the movement. But even there it was rarely as vicious as the attacks that today come from the women and transngeders who have infiltrated and taken over the movement (the ‘Honey Badgers’) and the new crop of MRAs who are simply mirror feminists, seeking to grab all the victimhood for men that women previously enjoyed, including ‘sex abuse’. Father’s rights activists were men who had their lives turned upside down by the feminist court system. Men’s rights for them was about fighting real injustice and defending men from the abuses of the feminist legal system. It wasn’t about telling men who had had a little too much to drink before they banged a girl at a party that they had been ‘raped’, or obsessing with victim labelling 17 year old boys who had gotten lucky with a 25 year old female teacher. And if you weren’t an angry father, just a male who opposed the demonization of men, it was obvious (at least in the not so puritanical GB) that feminist child abuse laws and definitions were wildly inflated.
It should also be noted that 15 or 20 years ago, feminist sex abuse hysteria was still centered on the father as being the most common child sex abuser (of his daughter – which statistically, is in fact the case). The internet driven hysteria over the paedophile bogeyman always online, always waiting to groom and corrupt your teenage daughter, took over from the image of the father as being the typical abuser. Father’s rights activists were hardly likely to object to this.
What’s also changed over the last 20 years is the sheer global insane intensity of paedohysteria. Twenty years ago it was possible to speak about these things rationally and engage in relatively cool headed debate. Now you are almost literally taking your life in your hands if you put your head above the parapet, as Evind Berge – so proud of being a public MRA – recently discovered. Twenty years ago it was almost fashionable for liberals like David Futrelle to mock the satanic child abuse panics of the 90’s. Nobody would seriously accuse you of being a satanic child abuser yourself. Today, question feminist child porn laws that lead to men being imprisoned for looking at pictures of teens in biknis, and it’s assumed that you yourself must be ‘looking at kiddy porn’. Of course, the opposite is far more likely to be true, especially if you call yourself a ‘men’s rights activist’. It is surely suspicous enough that you are a men’s rights activist and don’t speak out on these issues, evern more so if you violently object that feminists jailing men for looking at pictures of clothed young women are not and never will be a men’s rights issue. (Especially when, unbelievably, a disturbing number of these ‘MRAs’ choose to have anime pictures of cute skimpely dressed 9 year old girls as their avatars).
The fact that as these feminist child abuse laws become ever more insane and result in ever more male lives being ruined, the less it becomes a men’s rights issue, makes no sense at all. One can only assume that most of the ‘MRAs’ who are willing to denounce real MRAs like myself and Eivind Berge as ‘pedo acceptance advocates’, and who are not a ‘honey badger’, are almost certainly acting from self-preservation at the thought of law enforcement looking at their browsing history.
I will close with some words quoted by David Thomas in his classic Men’s Rights book.
In my view, the obsessive search for evidence of such perverse behaviour tells you more about the people doing the searching than it does about those being searched.