Category : Angry Harry

The History of Feminist ‘Child Sex Abuse’ Laws in the MRM

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.

Contents :

1 – Ernest Belfort Bax
2 – David Thomas
3 – Angry Harry
4 – After Harry –
Paul Elam and Hannah Wallen

ernest belfort baxErnest 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’.

not guilty david thomasDavid 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 HarryAngry 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’.

See also : and

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.

After Harry – How did feminist child sex abuse laws become off topic to the MRM?

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’.

Hannah Wallen sexy honey badger mra
Paul Elam attempted to appeal to ‘MGTOWs’ by ‘sexing up’ the MHRM through employing dozens of ‘Honey Badger’ females and transgenders such as Hannah Wallen

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.

Angry Harry – ‘Imagine that, for some reason, you are determined to ruin a child’s life’

Another classic Angry Harry article that needs preserving, that needs studying by anyone who claims to be a ‘men’s rights activist’, and that who thinks that forcing feminist definitions of rape and child abuse onto men and on to teenage boys is ‘men’s rights’.  Before I link to the article and reprint the most important excerpt from it (but please read and then read again the entire original article), here are five brief points for so called ‘MRAs’ to consider:

1/ Modern age of consent laws are an entirely feminist invention. Their justification was, is, and always has been based upon feminist arguments, hysteria, and junk science advocacy ‘research’.

2/ Feminist age of consent laws lead to tens of thousands of men being imprisoned (and very often raped).

3 / Feminist age of consent laws lead to feminists telling both teenage girls and teenage boys (with the help of ‘MRAs’) that they have been scarred for life.

4 / Unsurprisingly, those teenagers do tend to develop into fucked up adults..

5 / In short, feminist age of consent laws lead to tens of thousands of men being raped in prison as subhuman nonces, tens of thousands of teenage girls and thousands of teenage BOYS having their lives unncessarily ruined, the demonization of normal male sexuality as paedophilia, the demonization of all men as paedophiles, daughters afraid of their fathers, girls and boys afraid of their (male) teachers, divorced wives given an easy false abuse claim option etc etc. Feminist age of consent laws do however make thousands of feminists rich (and Paul Elam). They also increase female sexual power by removing competition, which is why feminists also tend to be against prostitution, sex robots, MGTOW, sex tourism etc etc.  What part of this is so fucking difficult for you simple minded frauds to understand?

Imagine that, for some reason, you are determined to ruin a child’s life.

What you could do is this.

You pretend to be very concerned about the child, and continually demonstrate what a trustworthy and credible person you are, and you tell the child, with full solemnity, sadness, and seriousness, that the little brown mole on the child’s back is a malignant cancer. You then go on to describe, on a daily basis, how painful and how damaging this cancer is going to be for the child.

The fact that the mole is utterly benign, and causes no sensation at all, is completely irrelevant. If the child is successfully convinced about it being a malignant cancer, and absorbs from you all the horrors that such illnesses entail, and, further, if the child is reminded about this constantly, you will certainly destroy his future well-being to a very large extent.

And yet this is the very kind of thing that the abuse industry does to children and adults, particularly over sexual matters.

In the case of adults, consensual sex can later be made to seem more like rape, and, in the case of ‘consensual’ child sex abuse, the incidents can later be ‘interpreted’ similarly, or, more commonly, simply as malicious acts of something akin to a form of psychological violence. And, in both cases, the victims can easily be led to believe that their respective moles are malignant cancers – ‘psychological cancers’ – with all the pain and misery that this gives rise to.

However, while it is definitely not a good idea for children to be sexualised – e.g. see Delay Delay Delay When it Comes to Sex – because there are many negative aspects to children engaging in ‘consensual’ sexual activities, the truth of the matter is that psychological trauma is not one of them.

And I must stress here that I have ONLY been talking about ‘consensual sex’.

Where ‘psychological trauma’ does appear to occur following ‘consensual’ sex, the major cause of it seems mostly not to derive directly from the events themselves, but from the way in which influential others respond to them. If these give out the message that the mole is a malignant cancer, then the emotional damage can be very great indeed.

See also another article (one of many on this theme) by Harry – written after Paul Elam had attempted to kick him out of the men’s rights movement for not going along with the AVoiceforMen feminist abuse industry agenda :

Angry Harry – ‘Men have been brainwashed into believing what is natural is perverted’

I already posted a link to this Angry Harry article a few years ago, but decided to revisit it again because it’s a classic example of the way he brought logic and cool headed reason to subjects that even most ‘red pill’ MRAs and others find hard to do so. Although using the case of a Japanese man caught taking ‘upskirts’ as an example, Harry is really discussing the way in which society pathologizes normal male sexuality through shaming language in order to control it.

What is wrong with men wanting to look up, or under, women’s skirts?


A few days ago, I switched on the TV, only to be horribly confronted by the sight of some 17 year old schoolboy from Japan being assiduously kicked and punched by some female who could have been his mother, his girlfriend, his wife, his sister, his schoolteacher, or even his grandmother – you can never quite tell with the Japanese because they age so well.

I put on my glasses to read the subtitles and, in summary, the schoolboy had been caught pointing his camera up the skirts of women and photographing whatever contents lay therein.

“Pervert. Pervert,” she shouted as she beat him about the head rather savagely.

And, “Pervert. Pervert,” shouted just about everyone else for the next ten minutes.

I’d had enough.

So I switched off the TV and spent the next 30 minutes or so thinking about the pleasures of looking up women’s skirts.

I’m a bit passed it now – well, almost – but I can assure my most excellent readers that it is perfectly normal for heterosexual men to enjoy looking up the skirts of women.

And there’s nothing perverted about it.

Indeed, if you look at the way in which women dress in order to titillate men – especially female singers, dancers, celebrities etc – it seems quite clear that just about everybody on the planet is aware of the fact that men enjoy taking sneaky peeks up women’s skirts.

So, what on earth can be ‘perverted’ about it?

Sure, it would be highly inappropriate to wonder around the streets peeking 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’?


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.


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 sexual antics men are disposed to engage in – mentally or behaviourally.

Very few of these things are extreme, rare or gross deviations from what seems to be natural – ‘natural’, essentially being something to do with the fact that males find females to be hugely attractive.

Or are men supposed to be sexually attracted to only one thing when it comes to women?

A single hole.

Of course, some forms of sexual predilection do seem to be ‘perverted’. Necrophilia, sexual murder/mutilation and, perhaps, sex with animals come to mind.

But the notion that a man is a pervert because he has the urge to touch, lick, fondle, smell or view the bodies of women – or parts thereof – seems to be utterly preposterous.

So, what is going on here?

Why is it that so many men – and, indeed, the tabloids – will label as a ‘pervert’ a man who is caught looking up women’s skirts?

And my own view is that, in much the same way that men have been brainwashed into finding funny even acts of horrible male mutilation (such as found in Bobbitt jokes) so it is that they have also been brainwashed into believing that what is natural for them is ‘perverted’.

Indeed, It is quite amazing to see just how stupefied and filled with (unconscious?) self-loathing men have become.

So my message to all you men out there is this.

If you feel the urge to look up the skirts of women, feel no shame

If you feel the urge to look up the skirts of women, feel no shame; because there is nothing perverted about this.

And whenever you hear other men mindlessly suggesting that such a desire is ‘perverted’, then point out to them that they must be so stupefied with malicious, misandric feminist hogwash that they have now, clearly, become very stupid men indeed.

So stupid, in fact, that not only are they demonising themselves, but they seem to be completely unaware of this.

And you can’t get much more stupid than that!

Full Backup of Angry Harry’s Site

Our great friend Scarecrow has made a complete RAR archive Angry Harry’s site. You can download it at :

In the words of Scarecrow :

This link contains a RAR archive of everything downloaded from his site.

It is in its RAW form – java scripts, css and all.

Feel free to download it – or – download the AngryHarry web pages yourself.

Huge thanks to Scarecrow for doing this, from myself and I’m sure all of my readers too.

Bernard Chapin on Angry Harry

Tribute to Angry Harry from our old friend (and even older friend of Harry) Bernard Chapin :

Angry Harry

Most of my readers will have heard the sad news that Angry Harry, father of the men’s rights movement, has passed away.

Personally I’ve never felt such grief at the passing of somebody that I have never met, or who wasn’t a member of my family or a close friend. Harry lived in London, like myself (and several others), and did propose to meet up with me last year, but I took his assurance that he would understand if I was too worried about my anonymity being risked as an excuse to temporarily decline the offer. Actually, I wasn’t worried about any risk to my privacy, as Harry was the one person in the anti-feminist movement I would trust absolutely, in his case not only with my real identity, but with my life. I was simply worried that I would disappoint him as I was in awe of him that much. It will be one of the biggest regrets of my life.

I’ll always be proud of the fact that Harry supported my position in the men’s rights movement right from the start and that this site was always one of a select few that he linked to in his sidebar.

Of course, I should make clear that Angry Harry did not share all of the positions held at this site, and he told me so himself in one of his e-mails (‘a bit too liberal for me’ were his words) but he most certainly did recognize that the core argument made here – that feminist sex hysteria hurts both men and children (and indeed, many women) – is not only a valid men’s rights issue, but one of the most important ones. He also recognized that equality of injustice is no kind of justice for men or boys, and a grave error that many ‘men’s rights activists’ have started to make over the last few years.

Oddly, we were just discussing Angry Harry’s absence here recently and I sent him an e-mail 2 or 3 weeks ago (Harry actually passed away in February). He had ‘gone quiet’ for a spell a couple of years ago, and I e-mailed him then and he replied assuring myself and others that his health was fine and that he was only taking a break from men’s rights. Consequently, I wasn’t overly concerned when he went missing again, although I should have tried to contact him again earlier than I did. Another big regret.

The fight against feminism is certainly lonelier without Angry Harry, but we should honour his memory by resolving to keep the struggle alive. I imagine that at least a few MRAs will be archiving his site – it will certainly be a tragedy if any of his essays are lost. Perhaps over the next few weeks I’ll re-post some of his classic articles. Readers may like to nominate some of their particular favourites or the pieces that have most relevance to the issues we see as important here (and which, unintentionally or not, may be ignored by other MRAs seeking to ‘preserve’ his works).

This site has always had a category devoted to him :

RIP Angry Harry, a truly great man.