Is the Forced Labelling of Consenting 17 Year Old Boys as ‘Victims’ a Form of Child Abuse?

The men's rights movement may just have achieved its greatest 'breakthrough' yet, as well as initiating what is, and might alway will be, its greatest achievement in terms of activism and influence in the real world.

A men's rights activist was invited yesterday to talk on the left-leaning feminist supporting Huffington Post on the subject of female sex predators and whether we should include boys more fairly within the feminist child abuse industry.

If I've read some of the recent discussions correctly, the MRM wishes to go beyond what even the feminists have thus far achieved - to legally be able to force the ruinous label of 'child abuse victim' onto 17 year olds engaged in entirely willing sex with older partners.  This is something that is presently only fully possible in less than 2% of the countries of the world (and note that in Europe, it is increasingly becoming common for 16 year olds to be deemed mature enough to vote on issues of massive geo-political and economic importance, such as Scottish independence).

If successful, the American men's rights movement will have achieved something qute incredible - the magnification and spread of feminist sex abuse hysteria to every corner of the globe.  This may ultimately be its lasting legacy to men and boys.

Is the Forced Labelling of Consenting 17 Year Old Boys as 'Victims' a Form of Child Abuse?

The age of consent double standard has always been a popular subject in the men's rights movement.  Sometimes, when looking at the most upvoted links at r/mensrights, you would think that this was the only issue in the movement, and certainly the most important.  Even the very first men's rights activist, Ernest Belfort Bax, correctly pointed out the disgraceful unfairness of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, sponsored by Suffragettes including Emmeline Pankhurst, and which raised the age of consent to 16, but only applied to men and their girl 'victims', and not to women having sex with boys.

Whilst it's true that Bax rightly pointed out this double standard, it's equally clear that he objected to the feminist law, and the raising of the age of consent, as well.  In other words, whilst Bax saw the injustice of the double standard, as an example of how the law favours women, he also had the intelligence to realise that equal feminist injustice is no justice at all.

Similarly, Angry Harry, the father of the modern men's rights movement, has often become very angry indeed himself at the clear injustice of the double standard.  But he too, as you would expect, is able to see clearly that inflicting feminist sex abuse hysteria upon children probably does more harm to the child than is necessary, and even potentially than the abuse itself.

For the men's rights movement, it is possible to take two approaches to society's double standard on feminist age of consent laws.  The double standard, as we know, involves both the clear disparity in sentencing between male and female offenders, as well as the difference in seriousness which society in general takes with regard to cases of girls or boys being 'abused' by older partners (for example making 'lucky boy' jokes when a female teacher is caught screwing a teenage boy student).

Both approaches seek to address what is fundamentally injust about the double standard - valuing females above males :

Approach 1/ The double standard is an example of the disposability of the male because the abuse of boys is not taken as seriously as the abuse of girls.  Moreover, the needs of the female adult perpetrator appear to be valued higher than those of the male child victim.

This is undoubtedly the majority position within the men's rights movement presently.  It is the viewpoint expressed by Dean Esmay on the Huffington Post, and held by probably over 90% of the Reddit Men's Rights community, as well as most men's rights bloggers.  But there is a second approach one might take :

Approach 2/ The double standard is an example of the disposability of the male because the savage penal retribution against 'sex predators' exists mainly to punish men who have sex with willing teenage girls, (not women and boys).  And this is explained simply by the fact that present day 'statutory rape' laws were created by feminists, at the same time as they were restricting male sexual choice in other matters, for example in laws against prostitution (and even efforts to close down saloon bars where men could freely mix with women other than their wives).

Now how do we decide which approach an ethical men's rights movement should  take?

This ought to entirely rest upon whether or not feminist statutory rape laws are just to begin with. 

Now I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of the age of consent in this article, not least because many in the MRM believe that to discuss such an issue is tantamount to the movement committing suicide, in the same way that the movement for homosexual rights supposedly had to ditch NAMBLA before it was taken seriously by society.

Even accepting this strategic necessity, there are several strong reasons for believing that an ethical men's rights movement with integrity should at least be able to consider the possibility that the second approach is of greater validity than the first approach, and that therefore the first approach simply validates feminist laws and abuse hysteria :

  • The present day age of consent was set by feminists in most countries as an explicitly stated means of 'controlling male sexuality'.  In the anglo-saxon countries, it was almost exclusively set by feminists (mainly the early suffragettes - in the UK, the same ones who were handing out white feathers to traumatised child soldiers).  This was criticised by anti-feminists at the time, including in the UK, by the world's first men's rights activist Ernest Belfort Bax.
  • Virtually all research conducted into the harm caused to teenagers engaging in willing sex with an older partner comes from feminist junk science.  This includes research supposedly proving the harm done by the 'abuse' of consenting boys.  The study most commonly referred to in the men's rights world 'proving' the harm of sex with teenage boys was conducted by a woman who had requested interviews with men 'abused' by women as boys.  In other words, the study was junk science pre-selecting men already identifying themselves as 'victims'.  Most independent studies confirm what ought to be a common sense view - that it is the labelling of teenagers as abuse victims that causes the most or even all of the damage.
  • 'Paedohysteria' or 'sex offender hysteria' - is harmful and disruptive to men, society, and children.  Even an increasing number of mainstream publications now recognise this. But the important fact is, it will remain the case even if we convince society to take 'the female sexual abuse of children' as seriously as we do the male abuse of girls, and to see every woman as a potential paedophile as is already the case for men.
  • Sex offender laws and hysteria will always target men more than they do women, for they target the male sexual love of youth and beauty in the opposite sex (and this, of course, is why they are feminist made).  No justice is served if a million men are being raped and beaten in prison as sex offenders, if a hundred thousand females are locked up with them (while no doubt inevitably having a cushier pain free time).
  • Sex offender hysteria, and in particular the prioritising of child sex abuse above the physical abuse of children  is a projection and validation of feminist self-interested moral value upon the world (numerous studies conclusively demonstrate that women are the greater offenders when it comes to physical abuse) .  Instead of focusing on the sexual abuse of children, and trying to prove that women are as guilty of it as men are, an intelligent non co-opted men's rights movement should instead give higher priority to forcing society to take more seriously the physical and emotional abuse of children (including, of course, boys who are the primary victims of it, most often by women).

In other words, although it might or might not be true that, at least for the time being, the feminist age of consent should not be regarded as a men's rights issue (if only for strategic and common sense reasons), this does not mean at all that men's rights activists should validate that feminist law itself, together with the surrounding sex abuse hysteria.

For as indicated above, if the second approach to the double standard is correct, or even if it simply might reasonably be correct, then it could be argued that the forced labelling of teenage boys as child abuse victims (under feminist laws, theory, and 'studies') is a form of child abuse in itself.

Is the labeling and processing of teenage boys engaging in willing sex with older partners a form of child abuse itself?  This is an important question, as surely no ethical human being would want to associate with a human rights movement that actually promotes child abuse.

To answer it, we need simply go back to our original two approaches to the double standard, in the light of the rest of this discussion, and then consider what follows from holding each approach (and succeeding in influencing societal attitudes and legislation).  Either teenage boys are indeed harmed and abused by sex with older partners (by the act itself, independent of the victim processing) or they are not.  In simpler language - 'boy abuse is real' or 'boy abuse is not real'.

If we follow approach 1 AND boy abuse is real, then justice is served and women are held accountable for the sexual abuse of teenagers just as men are.  This would be an achievement for men's rights.

If we follow approach 2 AND boy abuse is real, then the interests of boys have not been served by the men's rights movement. (although one could still argue that there is a middle ground between taking the abuse of boys as seriously as girls, and yet not as hysterically as we presently do the abuse of girls, as this still compounds the original harm).

If we follow approach 2 AND boy abuse is NOT real, then the interests of boys, men, and society (and, incidentally, female 'sex offenders' who would wrongly be punished) have been served.  Boys are not artificially processed and traumatised as 'victims', and thousands upon thousands of men are not unjustly sent to prison as paedophiles, to be beaten and raped for years or decades.

If we follow approach 1 AND boy abuse is NOT real, then we have committed a crime against humanity, against men, and against boys.  All we have succeeded in doing is validating the feminist child abuse industry that creates victims and destroys the lives of thousands or even millions of men, and extended the victim processing to include boys who were entirely willing in their 'abuse' and who would suffer no harm if it wasn't for the interference of society and the state (as a result of our lobbying).  The 'achievement' of forcing society to become equally hysterical towards the 'abuse' of boys will also lead to even greater suspicion of men as being paedophiles (for the reason that more boys are 'abused' by homosexual men than they are by women).

Now, you might continue to protest that we are merely 'playing safe' by taking the abuse of boys as seriously as that of girls.  But the point of the above discussion is to show that a pro-active stance on the feminist age of consent is not 'morally neutral' in its outcomes.  It is downright harmful and destructive, not least to boys.

We know that the labelling of teenagers, boys or girls, as child abuse victims is inherently harmful to them.  This is just common sense.  The only justification we presently have of doing so, is feminist laws, junk science, and anti-patriarchal anti-male sexuality 'theory'.

The age of consent is not like a speeding limit, neutral in its outcome, a line in the sand we should all just adhere to.  If the feminist age of consent is too high, it leads to teenagers being unfairly labelled as victims, forced to undergo therapy, told over and over again (in the words of one MRA) that they will be 'destroyed for life', and forced to testify against somebody they might love, knowing that they are sending him or her to prison.  Not to mention the injustice and harm caused to the male (or female) 'sex offender'.  I mean...this is men's rights, after all.

If those 19th century feminists and white feather campaigners  (perish the thought) got it wrong about the age of consent, then in promoting their child abuse laws, and forcing their victim labels upon boys, we have become child abusers.

If those 20th century radical feminists who point to junk science 'proving' the harm done to teenage boys and girls by sex with older partners, backed up by anti-male sexuality 'patriarchal' power relations theory, have (perish the thought) got it wrong, then we have become child abusers.

Equality for men and boys is a great and noble cause, and I have confidence it will win in the end, but equality of injustice and equity of abuse hysteria?  I want no part in promoting and mirroring the feminist child abuse industry.

I want no part in child abuse.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important notes and disclaimers :

  • Angry Harry has (typically) written the most cogent defence of the idea that teenagers do need protection against sex that I've read.  I am in no way suggesting that Angry Harry shares my views on the age of consent.  I simply believe he would have reservations regarding any attempt to clumsily mirror the feminist child abuse industry.
  • I have always made it clear that adults who have sex with anyone under the age of consent ARE abusers.  They have involved a young person in a breech of the law (even if an injust one) and put them at risk of being processed as a child abuse victim.
  • It has not been my intention to denigrate the personal experiences and feelings of abuse that any MRAs have had in relation to illegal sex with a woman they suffered when they were boys.  Indeed, it is striking that almost every MRA now professes to have been sexually abused by a woman as a child.
  • This article is not intended as a personal attack on any website or individual, but rather a plea for the MRM in general to think through the moral ramifications of what appears to me to be a mirroring of feminist child abuse hysteria, and a validating of feminist laws that lead to the criminalization and increasingly savage penal retribution against  tens of thousands of men.
  • For strategic reasons, and this is has always been the official position of this site, there is a case to be made that we should demand that female sex predators be punished as harshly as males are.  But not to validate feminist sex abuse hysteria, but to undermine it.
  • What the American wing of the men's rights movement is currently doing could be compared to the absurd hypothetical (and impossible) situation of a powerful secular liberal men's rights movement demanding that female domestic violence abusers be treated just as harshly as male offenders are, that this is the most important men's rights goal, and in fact that the laws on domestic violence be extened and even more broadly defined, without making any attempt to question feminist domestic violence hysteria itself.  Furthermore, claiming that to do so would be 'suicidal', and that any MRAs attempting to do so are likely battering their wives and girlfriends, or at least simply rationalising their own desire to batter and victimise women.

 

18 thoughts on “Is the Forced Labelling of Consenting 17 Year Old Boys as ‘Victims’ a Form of Child Abuse?

  1. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Sorry, for some reason commenting was disabled on this post - wasn't intentional. Just fixed it.

  2. You'r dog meat, Brady!

    Any reason why this article has appeared in a mainstream internet site?

    Is it because of a certain amount of momentum generated in recent weeks or months in the number of hits on this site and others?

    Has this publicity created a situation where the mainstream simply had to open the door a fraction in order not to appear completely out of touch?

    Or are there other reasons?

    Has there been some background momentum and something else sparking off the appearance of this article (whatever one might think of the arguments put forward in it)?

    If so, what might that something else have been?

    Why now?

    For that matter, why now and why this artcile, with these arguments?

  3. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Not Sure I unerstand you entirely Dog Meat.

    Are you talking about Dean Esmay appearing on the mainstream site Huffington Post (it was a live chat I believe)?

    I wrote this article because of that appearance by Esmay and the related article describing it as a breakthrough on AVfM.

    Since the day I set up this blog 4 or 5 years ago, it's been about fighting the feminist sex abuse industry that is eating away at society, the family, relations between generations including fathers and their children, and criminalizing and jailing increasing thousands upon thousands of normal men.

    When I started this blog, I was naieve to think that this was obviously a men's rights issue. And, really, the only mra I read heavily was Angry Harry (the father of modern men's rights).

    A Voice for Men is now far and away the biggest men's rights site. Praising one of its main staff writers for appearing on a feminist 'progressive' liberal mainstream site to talk about including boys more equally within the feminist sex abuse industry is not why I came into men's rights for, and in my opinion, represents a betrayal of what men's rights is and always has been since Ernest Belfort Bax. This is why I wrote the above article.

  4. Alan Vaughn

    @theantfeminist or maybe I should ask You're dog meat, Brady!
    Were you referring to Dean Esmay's story or the much more useful one by TRUE men's rights avocate and writer: Brendan O’Neil?

    BTW: the above article is at least as good! (Now, if only it too was on The Huffington Post)...

  5. theantifeminist

    Post author

    His comment appeared before I posted the O'Neil article Alan.

    BTW, to answer Dog Meat Brady's question if it refers to the Esmay article (interview) : the reason it has appeared on a mainstream site (the huffington post) at this time is because feminists see a golden opportunity of co-opting the potentially threatening men's rights movement into the lucrative and absolutely pivotal (to what feminism is - i.e. a sexual trade union) child sex abuse industry and related laws.

    As Jack says, ultimately, feminists and mRAs might be entirely happy to strike a deal on issues relating to father's custody and visitation rights, and the odd 'equality' issue such as male circumcision etc, so long as those mRAs are willing to validate age of consent laws and agree to be co-opted within the child sex abuse industry.

    Men's rights supporters are only too eager, also, to portray themselves as champions of 'boys' - in order to deflect the accusation of being 'privilaged' angry white men. To this end, they will be only too happy to support the forced 'protection' of 17 year old boys from 'cougars', even though it will lead to thousands or even millions of men (and even boys) being criminalized further by the feminist child abuse industry which they are validating.

  6. Alan Vaughn

    To this end, they will be only too happy to support the forced ‘protection’ of 17 year old boys from ‘cougars’, even though it will lead to thousands or even millions of men (and even boys) being criminalized further by the feminist child abuse industry which they are validating.

    All it amounts to is what you say it is too: Equality of INjustice for all - I'd much rather invalidate the current feminist false 'child-abuse' laws by exposing the total lie it all is and it's true purpose: to maintain, thus ensure continued funding for the very wealthy SCAM the entire thing really is.

    That way, no more lives need to be ruined (by enforced victimhood, not to mention the so-called (cougar) 'perpetrators') and even more lives might be saved, whilst society may eventually return to a state with some semblance of moral decency as well..

    The only thing that will surely happen now, if what these mRAs (and their feminist allies that they are playing right into the hands of) want is won, will be even more hatred, between men and women, between young and old and even different religions and social classes.

  7. Eric

    Alan:
    One thing that mRAs consistantly overlook is their knee-jerk assumuption that, under the current paradigm, ONLY men are suffering. It's true, for example, that a 30 or 40 something guy with a teenaged girlfriend is going to be persecuted for it; probably winding up in jail. But what happens to the girl, the so-called 'victim'?

    Well, she's likely to get turned over to a gang of clipped-haired, mean-faced lesbo-femihag social workers for 'deprogramming' (i.e. re-education). This might include psychoactive drugs if she can't shake the idea that heterosexual sex with an older man is perfectly normal.

    Is this the Mangina-Rights Activists' idea of empowering boys and young men? Because this what's going to happen to these male 'victims' too; although I'm picturing the vindicative femihags inventing a far more sadistic form of re-education for the male 'victims'.

  8. Jack

    ... she’s likely to get turned over to a gang of clipped-haired, mean-faced lesbo-femihag social workers for ‘deprogramming’ (i.e. re-education). This might include psychoactive drugs if she can’t shake the idea that heterosexual sex with an older man is perfectly normal.

    I would be anxious to know whether this is the case. My hunch is that the girl is left in peace as soon as she testifies against the man, which she will do readily (women never died under torture, remember). The only exception is if the girl is 1) very young (years away from legal age) 2) above-average in looks and figure 3) above-averagely raunchy. In this case an attempt will be made to snatch her away from her family so that she can be marketed for big money to people who are above the law.

  9. Alan Vaughn

    Is this the Mangina-Rights Activists’ idea of empowering boys and young men? Because this what’s going to happen to these male ‘victims’ too; although I’m picturing the vindicative femihags inventing a far more sadistic form of re-education for the male ‘victims’.

    And with the full acceptance and approval of the mRAs (as found on mainstream mRA blogs) that fought for and won this equal injustice for both sexes.

    Whatever we do, we MUST keep the paedohysteria fire burning! This way it simply cannot go out - all normal SEXUALITY (not just normal male sexuality) will be paedophilia! More paedohysteria, therefore: More victims, more perverts and sickos, more thought police, more prisons and of course the ideal society, with MORE HATE!

    It at least, if nothing else, proves that old adage is true: 'If we cannot beat them, JOIN them.'

    Thank you mRAs. Job well done!

  10. Eric

    Jack:
    Back in the 90s, we had a local radio host named Mike Siegel who ran a series of exposes showing that 'Child Protective Services' were doing exactly what you described. That, and blowing the lid off the whole Wentatchee Sex Ring witch-hunt cost him his job and I don't think his career ever fully recovered.

    I met him once back then and he mentioned being in favor of lowering AOC laws.

    Anyway, he was fanning the paedohysteria back at the people who were generating it. He always used to say that the only ritual child abuse going on were rituals carried on under the color of law and order. LOL

  11. You're dog meat, Brady

    @Antifeminist,

    Thanks for getting back to me.
    So I guess I was about right, that the femihags couldn't ignore this issue forever because of the simple fact it's getting a certain amount of coverage in parts of the blogosphere, and have decided to co-opt it?
    Anyway, I wonder if it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Messing with people's minds by telling them they're victims is unethical, but if the other side decides to go that route, then maybe the basic contradictions of their position can be made a bit more obvious, ie they can hardly say to a boy they're not vicitmised when they never stop chanting it to teenage girls who become involved with older man.

  12. theantifeminist

    Post author

    So I guess I was about right, that the femihags couldn’t ignore this issue forever because of the simple fact it’s getting a certain amount of coverage in parts of the blogosphere, and have decided to co-opt it?

    It's not getting much coverage really - a handful of sites such as this one. But yes, feminists realise that only a powerful men's rights movement that recognises child abuse hysteria as a key issue in the war against men can likely stop their criminalization of male sexuality any time soon. Feminists are obviously becoming very much aware of the men's rights movement, and perhaps they've noted that a minority of sites within that movement are tackling the age of consent and paedohysteria.

    It's a good idea for feminists to co-opt the movement now, as the MRM may never be so dogmatically opposed to challenging the child abuse industry as it is now. You could argue we are unlucky in that a handful of key individuals, for whatever reason, such as Paul Elam, are so vehmentally opposed to discussing it. It's a shame that a few individuals haven't appeared on this side of the atlantic, at this pivotal stage in the growth of teh MRM, that could challenge Elam. It's a shame that Steve Moxon doesn't really want to get too involved with the men's rights movement as such.

    At the end of the day, mras are flocking to A Voice for Men because it's the only site that appears to be getting anything done. Of course, by disussing these issues so bluntly (as I do) it handicaps the ability to enage in real men's rights activism and 'get anything done'. There's no doubt Paul Elam is correct there, but that does not excuse AVfM from positively co-opting the MRM into the feminist child abuse industry.

    Anyway, I wonder if it’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Messing with people’s minds by telling them they’re victims is unethical, but if the other side decides to go that route, then maybe the basic contradictions of their position can be made a bit more obvious, ie they can hardly say to a boy they’re not vicitmised when they never stop chanting it to teenage girls who become involved with older man.

    Yes, but why would feminists worry about whether teenage boys are falsely victim labelled? Not sure I understand you.

    And who is going to challenge that victim labelling (of boys and girls) if the men's rights movement is co-opted into the abuse industry?

  13. Eric

    Brady & Antifeminist:
    It also should be borne in mind that co-opting movements is a time-honored, tested, & true American tradition.

    I've had a suspicion, aroused since the Eivind Berge Case, that the STU is suffering some setbacks around the world---but they know fully well that they CANNOT afford to lose the United States. This is why I believe that Socon Feminism is especially dangerous because ultimately it equates the feminist agenda with Americanism. Therefore, countries which reject feminism can be depicted as 'anti-American' while Americans who reject it can be lampooned as 'un-American.'

    About the only bright side to this dismal picture is that left-leaning punks like Futrelle and Schwyzer are going to be deemed 'expendable' and the first ones thrown under the bus.

  14. Alan Vaughn

    @theantifeminist

    And who is going to challenge that victim labelling (of boys and girls) if the men’s rights movement is co-opted into the abuse industry?

    Well we already do... I'd like to at least hope it will go some way, sometime towards changing things.
    (If I didn't have at least a glimmer of hope I probably wouldn't follow anything in the MRM, let alone post comments to MRM blogs and msm publications at times).

    Even hope based on what we do here is better than no action at all, I believe.
    And as you've pointed out recently: more people are visiting your blog...

  15. Eric

    Alan:
    I think we'll soon see another 'breakthrough' when these pathethic whiny manginas start appearing Oprah to share their tales of woe...

    I predicted a couple of months ago that what we were seeing in paedohysteria throughout the Anglosphere was only the tip of the iceberg. This is really going to get bad really soon.

  16. jack

    The book "Legalizing misandry" has a chapter about the satanism hysteria that gripped the US in the eighties. According to that book, such hysterias develop when a Society enters political or economic murky waters. People put their hopes in scapegoating. Thoughout History scapegoating has expressed itself through xenophobia. Nowadays xenophobia is not PC so scapegoats have to be found within the own ranks. By this analysis "abusers" are Today's scapegoats. Be that as it my, the crazier it gets, the better chances the abcess will burst.

  17. Anonymous

    @theantifeminist-
    I wrote:
    "Anyway, I wonder if it’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Messing with people’s minds by telling them they’re victims is unethical, but if the other side decides to go that route, then maybe the basic contradictions of their position can be made a bit more obvious, ie they can hardly say to a boy they’re not vicitmised when they never stop chanting it to teenage girls who become involved with older man."

    Yes, but why would feminists worry about whether teenage boys are falsely victim labelled? Not sure I understand you.
    -I was referring to public reaction. The feminists themselves don't care about these kids, but what if the public starts seeing this labelling for what it is?

  18. theantifeminist

    Post author

    -I was referring to public reaction. The feminists themselves don’t care about these kids, but what if the public starts seeing this labelling for what it is?

    O.K, I understand you now. It's an interesting point, but I still don't think the public will care.

    The fact is that society has ingrained prejudices to see girls who have sex with older men as 'victims'.

    On the part of other men this is to do with feelings of paternalistic protection (especially if they have daughters) and the historical reality that for 99.9% of human history causal sex with an unmarried adolescent girl was likely to result in her holding a baby and at least her 'virgin' value ruined.

    On the part of women, of course, it is sexual jealousy and the desire to restrict younger competition.

    The prejudice on the part of men is invalid in today's secular, slut walker, welfare state, free contraception, abortion on demand society.

    The female prejudice towards sex with young girls is more 'valid' (from their self-interested point of view) than ever.

    But neither of these prejudices apply to boys having sex with women, and never have.

    Society might (and does) think, when seeing a 16 year old boy banging his teacher, 'what a joke' if he's portrayed as a victim.

    But I don't think it will change the prejudice about sex with young girls. It's hardwired in both men's brains and female brains.

    And the men's rights movement should be fighting the outdated prejudice concerning sex with young girls, not validating it by fighting the 'prejudice' (actually correct view) of sex with young boys.

Leave a Reply

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

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