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.