In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament’s criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. “Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult,” it read, “result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.”
It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.
Of course no new scientific or independent research has emerged in the decades since to justify these changes in attitudes – just increasingly desperate paedohysteria from femihags across the world in the context of an increasingly free sexual market in which they cannot hope to compete with nubile teenage girls. In other words, a clear and unambiguous crime against humanity, or rather, against men.
Disturbingly, while the left-wing feminist Guardian can admit this, the men’s rights movement appears to be having trouble even accepting the idea that the mutilation and torture of ‘paedophiles’ – defined thus by feminists, under feminist laws that clearly bring a sexual advantage to themselves and which supposedly ‘protect’ young people from harm of which there is not even any evidence for – is a men’s rights issue.
Apparently, after much reflection, and very grudgingly, Lucian Valsan thinks that it is – but only because it applies to men only. Equal mutilation for all! In fact, many of his readers seem even to baulk at that suggestion, instead musing on whether the phrase ‘chemical castration’ is ‘over emotional’ and should be replaced with ‘chemically induced impotence’ :
Is the men’s rights movement really now the first political rights movement in history to support the torture and mutiliation of members of the group it supposedly represents by the group it is supposedly fighting against?