Category : Male Sexuality

Why is there still no pro male sexuality movement?

The invention of the pill changed the sexual landscape forever, and fifty years later, society is still coming to terms with it and working out a new sexual moral code. Or more accurately, women have been working out how to continue justifying and protecting their maladaptive needs, and constrain male sexuality, in a new sexual rulebook enforced upon society and men through feminism (and femiservatism).

The pill, as well as other technological ‘advances’ such as abortion on demand, effectively separated sex from reproduction for the first time in tens of thousands of years of human existance. It ought to have, and for a brief time did, largely separate sex from stifling morality. The pill sexually liberated men far more than it did women, and certainly older women (the type of women which tends to have political power). The problem for men is that in the decades since, whilst feminism has exploded in its Second and Third Waves as a response to the new sexual realities, and as a brutal counterrevolution to the sexual revolution, there has been a near complete lack of male reply.

The pill enabled men to have sex with women without consequence. Sexual morality for thousands of years had been based upon the need to compel men (and the community) to support impregnated women. In fact, Western Civilization today is built upon the Christian myth of the virgin Mary and her baby Jesus, a myth we celebrate each year at this time by giving gifts, mirroring the gifts (resources) given to Mary and the fatherless newborn child Jesus. The pill changed all this. It didn’t liberate women, because women’s psychology didn’t change. The philosopher Schopenhauer wrote that after sex, a woman wants to embrace and hold her man, the man just wants to go to sleep (no doubt, to dream of sex with other young fertile women). Men no longer had to be held accountable for the sex act, as a woman was no longer left potentially high and dry, holding a baby. Men thought the sex war had ended, and gleefully left the battlefield with their cocks in their hands. In fact, the war was about to take on an ever greater brutality, with only one side fighting it.

In terms of political movements comparable to feminism, men have thus far come up with the Men’s Rights Movement and MGTOW, and more broadly the Manosphere, and even more broadly I guess, the alt-right.

The men’s rights movement had promising beginnings, with even its very founder – the Victorian thinker Ernest Belfort Bax – being a free love advocate, railing in his extensive writings against such things as feminist definitions of sexual assault, and the raising of the age of consent (their ‘favourite krank’ as he put it). This continued into the modern age when, for the first time, the sexual upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s were analyzed from the point of view of men, by ‘men’s rights’ authors such as David Thomas, Neil Lyndon, and Lionel Tiger, and the online MRM founder Angry Harry. The latter three, certainly, recognized the pill as fundamentally changing the balance of power between the sexes, and all of these early MRAs were positive in their view of male sexuality that had been diminished by the feminist response to the sexual revolution (and all of them recognized intuitively that feminism was responding to the sexual revolution of the 60’s that had liberated men more than women, not creating it as per the standard narrative).

Since then, as we have documented here recently, the MRM has turned into a curious mirror of victimhood feminism, not merely in the sense of being a male version of feminism, but actually validating feminist sexual morality and demanding ‘a piece of the pie’ in terms of shared and equal victimhood in a regrettably free sexual marketplace.

The MGTOW appears on the surface more promising. At least MGTOWs, who reject women completely, aren’t likely to suffer the fate of the MRM in being infected and taken over by female ‘sympathetic’ parasites such as the ‘Honey Badgers’. Unlike MRAs, MGTOWs do also propose a sexual strategy in response to the changed sexual universe men and women now inhabit. Go your own way and leave women behind. However, there are two major problems with the MGTOW approach. Firstly, it seems more like an admission of defeat on the part of men, rather than a new battle tactic in response to the changed formations of the enemy (feminism). If men can no longer fight on the sexual battlefield, it’s time to leave it. Secondly, MGTOWs tend to be a little short on details of how men, especially young horny men, are actually supposed to lead a sexually fulfilling life in the absence of women and girls. They don’t tend to talk about porn much, and certainly don’t seem to rage against the ever increasing criminalization of porn. Maybe they think we should just castrate ourselves, or think about puppies, or Margaret Thatcher, every time a sexual thought enters our head? The one exception to this rule is sex robots. MGTOWs like to talk about sex robots..A LOT! If you subscribe to any of the leading MGTOWs or even the ones with a dozen subscribers, every other video now is about sex robots and how sexbots will lead to the MGTOW sextopia. And fair play to them, they do appear to recognize that feminists such as Kathleen Richardson are trying desperately hard to ban sex robots (for obvious reasons).

A third issue with MGTOWs is that it all seems to be a little too much like the feminist modus operandi – older, less sexually valuable individuals telling their younger more sexually valuable (and viable) rivals that sex is wicked, that it will lead to harm, that we’re only telling you this to protect you etc. Not that I believe that MGTOWs are hypocrites or actively trying to stop young people having sex out of bitterness and rivalry, as femihags are doing, but let’s just say it’s easy to be an MGTOW when you’re an old unattractive fart like me who women, and especially young hotties, don’t want anymore.

The Manosphere and the ‘alt-right’ have pretty much gone the same way as the MRM – heavily influenced by ‘sympathetic’ and invariably conservative women (the alt-right are currently having this battle with ‘tradhots’ – at least, unlike MRAs who are supposed to actually be a specifically MEN’S movement, the alt-rightists like RooshV recognize the danger of letting women speak for them).

Some readers may remember a time when Ferdinand Bardemu, the webmaster of InMalaFide and one of the founders of the Mansophere, would heavily promote this site on his weekly link dump (and I’m eternally grateful to old Ferd). Then Ferdinand Bardemu turned into Matt Forney, an ultra-traditionalist who wanted a piece of the growing alt-right action, and who recognized that being sympathetic to such taboo issues as the age of consent would be near suicide, as Milo later discovered.

Heartiste/Roissy, another founder of the Mansophere, also bravely and explicitly spoke up on issues such as paedohysteria and the age of consent, and is still bravely doing so, even if tempered a little (30 year old men dating late teens ‘icky’???).

The alt-right was indeed very promising as a possible pro male sexuality movement. After all, it has an openly gay Englishman who boasts of sucking black cocks as its nominal head. It grew as a young conservative male’s alternative to traditional mainstream establishment Conservatism/Republicism – recognizing the bullshit of the Left as regards transgender rights and anti-male sexuality feminism, and seeking some form of middle-ground between the wisdom of traditionalism and the realities of the changed post-pill sexual landscape for men. Finally, a possible men’s movement that sought to create a genuine new male sexual morality unconstrained by outdated female orientated traditionalism whilst sticking two fingers up at feminism and so called ‘progressivism’. Sadly, as you would expect from an American dominated conservative movement, it has descended back into traditionalism and now alt-righters spend most of their time accusing Democrats and left-wingers of being ‘paedophiles’, apparently so brain dead that it came as a genuine surprise when their own sort – such as Roy Moore – inevitably started facing the same accusations.

American politics is now conducted akin to the thinking of World War One generals. A Republican will consider that if the last man in the USA not imprisoned for paedophilia or sex crimes is a Republican supporter, then that will mean that the Republicans have won.

And finally, a brief word on PUAs. PUAs again promised to bring something new to the table. A new sexual strategy in the new sexual landscape was finally being promoted by men for men. Further, a lot of the leading PUAs, such as our old friend Krauser PUA, were political and anti-feminist. In the end, it brought nothing. PUAs didn’t want to actively fight feminists because all this ‘red pill’ shit would ‘lower their frame’ and threaten to reduce their 1 in 100 lay ratios to something as beta as 1 in 125. Never mind that one day very soon talking to women in the street will be illegal, and it in fact might be in the UK by the end of next year). Most of these PUAs are so clueless and unaware of anything but their relentless pursuit of HB6 pussy that they will actually be non-plussed when they run up to a woman from behind with the ‘Yad stop’ and have their scripted negging routine rudely interrupted by the hand of a copper on their shoulder. Further, when PUAs are aware and politicized, they are inevitably traditionalist, and somehow perform mental gymnastics to accommodate this ultra-traditionalism with a life devoted to trying to pump and dump conservative teenage virgins in Eastern Europe.

So MRAs, MGTOWs, Alt-Righters and PUAs have all disappointed and we still await a movement by men and for men that actually puts forward a positive sexual path for all men in an era when sex and reproduction (and hence rationally speaking sex and morality) have and increasingly will be divorced, and that is furthermore prepared to fight for it.


Morrissey Puts the MRAs to Shame

The iconic former lead singer with 80’s band ‘The Smiths’ – Morrissey – has had the balls to say things that are simply taboo for so called ‘men’s rights activists’ these days. In an interview with a German news magazine, he defended both Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, as well as speaking out on sex with minors.

Morrissey has attracted controversy after defending Kevin Spacey over allegations of sexual abuse.
He said the star had been “attacked unnecessarily”, adding it was “ridiculous” that Spacey was being erased from an upcoming film.
The former Smiths singer also argued that definitions of harassment and assault have become too broad.
“Anyone who ever said ‘I like you’ to someone else is suddenly being charged with sexual harassment,” he said

He then goes on to attack the present climate on sex with minors, stating the obvious fact that musicians have always had sex with underage groupies, and asking if we will end up jailing everybody (most ‘MRAs’ would apparently be happy with every man being jailed for ‘paedophilia’ so long as a few cougar teachers are put in prison with them).

Morrissey added that many famous musicians had slept with fans who were under the age of consent.
“Throughout the history of music and rock ‘n’ roll there have been musicians who slept with their groupies,” he said, while clarifying that he was not one of them.
“If you go through history, almost everyone is guilty of sleeping with minors. Why not throw everyone in jail right away?

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42050512

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/morrissey-ueber-brexit-kevin-spacey-und-merkels-fluechtlingspolitik-a-1178545.html

If there is a huge backlash against Morrissey’s comments on underage sex, we can only hope that unlike the gay leader of the alt-right – Milo Yiannopoulos – he doesn’t lose control of his bowels and instead stands firm.

The paedohysteria aspect of the witchhunts sparked by the Harvey Weinstein scandal may mark a turning point in that for the first time, feminists appear to be targeting homosexual men and, encouragingly, it seems that a few prominent gay men are fighting back on behalf of their condemned brothers. As I’ve repeatedly argued here over the last ten years, the homosexual/feminist alliance was a pact of opportunism that will never survive in the long run. Homosexuals wanted liberation, feminists wanted to paint a picture of ‘tolerance’ while they embarked upon a brutal assault on normal male sexuality. But the elephant in the room was always homosexual pederastry. There had to be an underlying tacit assumption on the part of both parties, with both sides agreeing to forget about pederastry and pretend that homosexuality has nothing to do with the sexual attraction to teenagers. Homosexuals in effect sold their soul to the devil in return for feminist protection. Now that feminist witchhunts are targetting prominent gay men for fondles with fresh chicken decades ago, the feminist/homosexual alliance – ‘a union as uneasy in its fundamentals as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact‘ – will be strained like never before.

In an ironic way, the fake MRAs of A Voice for Men and the Honey Badgers such as Hannah Wallen may inadvertently speed this along. With their obsession with forcing sexual victimhood upon boys and validating feminist age of consent laws, they are inevitably reawakening latent mob persecution of the homosexual. I once wrote an article here attacking their absurd support for the claim that ‘1 in 6 boys has been sexually abused’, pointing out the obvious fact that not only does it imply that a huge percentage of men are paedophile child sex abusers, it entails that the majority of homosexual men are active paedophile child molestors.

Homosexuals from Socrates to Alan Turing, and indeed Mozza himself, were enamoured with the beauty of boys. Homosexuality is male sexuality free from the constraints of chimpanzee female monogamy, or at least it was for thousands of years until, ironically, homosexuality was ‘legalized’ by the feminist/gay lib pact. Without the female need to be protected and provided for by one ‘alpha male’, and without the reproductive aspect of the sex act, male heterosexuals would behave just like homosexuals did throughout history until their so called ‘liberation’. It would all be about chasing young tail. And in fact, that’s how heterosexual men, or at least those with power and status, did behave in the 60’s and 70’s era. Now feminists are forcing them to pay the price, but whether by design or by simply ‘collateral damage’, so are homosexual men, and this could be the game changer.

All the streets are crammed with things
Eager to be held
I know what hands are for
And I’d like to help myself
You ask me the time
But I sense something more
And I would like to give
What I think you’re asking for
You handsome devil
Oh, you handsome devil
Let me get my hands
On your mammary glands
And let me get your head
On the conjugal bed
I say, I say, I say
I crack the whip
And you skip
But you deserve it
You deserve it, deserve it, deserve it
A boy in the bush
Is worth two in the hand
I think I can help you get through your exams
Oh, you handsome devil
Oh, let me get my hands
On your mammary glands
And let me get your head
On the conjugal bed
I say, I say, I say
I crack the whip
And you skip
But you deserve it
You deserve it, deserve it, deserve it

**UPDATE – it just occurred to me that there are very important parallels between the gay liberation movement and the men’s rights movement. In the early days of gay rights, it was taken as granted that what was being fought for was liberation of the ‘pederast’. In fact, I’m not sure that the term ‘homosexual’ was even used before the 1960’s. As the movement grew stronger, it was infiltrated by ‘sympathetic feminists’. Very soon, ‘homosexuals’, who were simply delighted to have such powerful allies, allowed themselves to be distanced from the ‘pederasts’ who, of course, had ‘nothing to do with homosexuality’. Fifty years later, we’re seeing the end results. Famous gay men being ‘outed’ amidst feminist anti-male witchhunts as child abusers for alleged fumbles with teenage boys decades ago. At the same time, supposed ‘victories’ for gay rights such as ‘gay marriage’ simply validate female monogamy and the female self-interested system of sexual ethics.

Similarly, feminist age of consent laws and the demonization of normal male sexual attraction to teenagers was always part of men’s rights, as it obviously should be. However, as the movement grew, leading individuals such as Paul Elam allowed the infiltration of ‘sympathetic women’ (of course, claiming to be actually ‘anti-feminist (although Paul Elam did actually once flirt with reaching out to overt feminists and even claimed to be a feminist himself)). Very soon, weak imbeciles and useful idiots such as Elam were so happy at winning persuasive female support (and finding donations were going up, as well as work as therapists for ‘sexually abused men’) they readily agreed to denounce any MRAs who continued to speak out on paedohysteria or the age of consent. The feminist age of consent now has ‘nothing to do with men’s rights or anti-feminism’. In fact, the feminist age of consent should be higher because boys need protecting from gay men cougars! Of course, any intelligent reader and real MRA can see what the end results will be for men.


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.

http://www.angryharry.com/esDoWeNeedAnAbuseIndustry.htm

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 : http://www.angryharry.com/Child-Abuse-The-Real-Culprits.htm and
http://www.angryharry.com/reTeaAbuse.htm

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.


Spokane Resident Shamed & Treated Like a Paedophile by Starbucks for Asking Out Legal Aged Barista

A resident of Spokane has been barred from Starbucks for asking one of their baristas – a legal aged 16 year old girl – out for a meal. The 37 year old homeless man, Lucas Werner, has subsequently been shamed on social media with feminists and social justice warriors calling for him to be arrested as a paedophile, despite the girl being legal for both consenting sex and to being exploited on low wages as child labour by a faceless billion dollar corporation. What seems to have upset the feminist hags in particular, is that he not only asked out a barely legal teen, but stoutly defended his right to chase and date younger women, and has quite rightly made a claim of discrimination against Starbucks on the grounds of agism.

Despite multiple rejections, he refuses to date anyone over the age of 25, and has posted obsessively about trying to date young women.
‘I’ve never dated younger women. I want to try that,’ he explained.
Wener wrote that he goes on dating websites where he would lie about his age to try and speak to girls aged between 18 and 22, but admitted it ‘will eventually catch up to you’
‘The youngest women. There’s nothing wrong with that.’
Werner was banned from a Spokane Starbucks after making advances towards the teenager – who is less than half his age.
He then accused the girl and Starbucks of ageism, adding that he had just asked her to dinner and ‘didn’t even show her the Washington state age of consent link.’
‘I was flirted with by a barista. For some reason she thought I was funny. Said I was funny. So I gave her a note to see if she’d be interested in dinner’, the man wrote in a public Facebook post that has since gone viral.
He said he returned to the Starbucks the following day and a Spokane police officer told him he was banned from the location.
Spokane police said businesses are allowed to refuse service to anyone who is causing trouble or being disruptive for as long as they see fit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4082616/I-won-t-stop-m-dating-women-born-1990s-Homeless-man-37-banned-Starbucks-asking-barista-16-admits-lying-age-dating-websites-meet-young-women.html

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=669_1483468359 (The feminist dog shaming him as a paedophile appears to be this person – Jillian Hunter).

(Paedocrite warning – the comments under the Daily Mail article are what we have come to expect. The sort that make you think the Islamization of the West isn’t such a bad thing anyway. Certainly not much left saving.)


10 Famous Pornstars Without Makeup (this is what you’re really fapping to)

I remember my old English teacher telling us that modern makeup is the only reason why the relatively recent phenomenon of females marrying outside of their teenage years is possible. Judging from the evidence here, it seems that makeup is the only reason why the billion dollar adult porn industry can exist too.

Allie Haze

allie-haze-without-makeup
Allie Haze without makeup

Anita Toro

anita-toro-without-makeup
Anita Toro without makeup

Bonnie Rotten

bonnie rotten without makeup
bonnie rotten without makeup

Brea Bennett

Brea Bennett without makeup
Brea Bennett without makeup

Bree Olson

Bree Olson without makeup
Bree Olson without makeup

Crista Moore

Crista Moore without makeup
Crista Moore without makeup

Dani Daniels

dani-daniels-without-makeup
Dani Daniels without makeup

Diamond Kitty

Diamond Kitty without makeup
Diamond Kitty without makeup

Eden VonSleeze

eden-vonsleaze-without-makeup

Jessica Mor

jessica-mor-without-makeup
Jessica Mor without makeup

Jynx Maze

jynx-maze-without-makeup
Jynx Maze without makeup

Keira King

keira-king-without-makeup
Keira King without makeup

Tiffany Tyler

 

tiffany-tyler-without-makeup
Tiffany Tyler without makeup

As the great Woody Allen once said – ‘sex is 99% in the mind’. And this is why those who believe that virtual sex will never replace the ‘real thing’ are 100% wrong.


TyphonBlue on Eivind Berge : (His) Sexual Frustration Must Be the ‘Processing of Overwhelming Sexual Trauma’!!

Our friend Eivind Berge alerted us to the following comments made by the increasingly popular ‘femRA’ TyphonBlue 2 or 3 years back, and I thought it deserved highlighting as a post in itself, just to illustrate what kind of cancer the Men’s Rights Movement is allowing itself to be infected with.

The comments were made nearly 3 years ago when Eivind was ‘INCEL’ (involuntarily celibate).  In response to another female commentator stating that Eivind was ‘fucking HOT’, TyphonBlue gave her own radical feminist take on Eivind’s sexual frustration :

IMHO it sounds like he’s processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past. I’m not saying that disqualifies him from being hot, but likely off-limits for the duration.

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/12/01/diversion-from-do-you-self-identify-%E2%80%A6-noh/#comment-103832

http://theantifeminist.com/paedohysteria-starts-to-eat-its-own-max-clifford-arrested-on-suspicion-of-sexual-offences/comment-page-1/#comment-39379

Now if, for example, the militant atheism movement was being accused of racism  for describing the Koran as a work of superstition, they might be tempted to embrace some dark skinned ‘apostates’ into their ranks – former Muslims who had renounced their previous faith and now fervently claimed that all religions are evil backward nonsense.  Atheists might even be tempted to give such apostates a high profile within their movement, perhaps more than they deserve by merit, truth be told, simply in order to deflect any accusations of racism against Muslims and possible links to White Nationalism or other ‘hate groups’ (through illustrating that Muslims are not a race but followers of a belief system, and it is only the belief system that atheists have a problem with).

But whatever you think about the Militant Atheism movement, you can be pretty sure that they would have sufficient critical faculties to be able to smell that something was up if any of those born again atheists curiously appeared to hold on to one or two of their former radical Islamist ideas – such as that homosexuals will burn in eternal fire.  Not only that, but if they held that the belief that homosexuals will burn in eternal fire should be a key assumption of atheism, and that atheists should raise money (including from Muslims) in order to devote more time to spreading the message that homosexuals will be condemned to eternal punishment (and that this promotes atheism and secularist ideals).

It appears that the men’s rights movement is a little different to the atheism movement.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Why would a femRA wish to validate the feminist child sex abuse industry and manufacture millions of fucked up male ‘victims’?  Apart from the obvious well documented (here) reason why a middle-aged woman would wish to deny any possible challenge (from the growing MRM) to the key Sexual Trade Union agenda of child abuse hysteria, the following words of Typhonblue herself may shed a little light on the subject :

In “Women Do Not Benefit: The Science,” I outlined how toxic victimhood limits women and socializes them to undermine their own achievements. Toxic victimhood promotes the perception that women are “acted upon” rather than actors. When a society is promoting toxic victimhood, there is no need to limit women overtly through legal, financial or social restrictions. Instead women will limit themselves through their own mental foot-binding.


David Thomas, Classic Men’s Rights Author, On Child Sex Abuse Hysteria

not guilty david thomasThe following is an excerpt from ‘Not Guilty : The Case in Defence of Men’, by British author David Thomas, one of the first men’s rights books of the modern era (published in 1993).

The excerpt comes from chapter 4 entitled ‘The Myth of the Bad Man’.  Thomas begins by discussing the recent child sex abuse panics that had been imported from the USA, and that had found expression most infamously with the Cleveland abuse scandal.

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 a testament to the success of feminist paedo-hysteria, along with American puritanism, that less than 20 years later,  it is ‘creepy’ to suggest even that men should not be jailed for years as paedophiles by feminist laws so absurd they define looking at pictures of 30 year old women with small breasts as ‘child abuse’.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“….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?”