Steve Moxon on the ‘Unprovable Hysteria’ over Jimmy Savile
In my wet dreams, I fantasise about Steve Moxon playing the Paul Elam role in a European pro-male sexuality men’s rights movement. Unfortunately, Moxon doesn’t appear to even ‘believe’ in a ‘men’s rights’ movement as such (society doesn’t need even more of a victim culture, according to him). But he does still occasionally publish things that say more than the entire existing MRM put together. This is his latest blog post in full :
Jimmy Saville has always seemed on the odd side of larger-than-life if not a creep, but the world’s gone mad in crazy presumption he was seriously weird and criminal. Is it really so hard to tell the difference between allegation and proof? And is it really so hard not to be able to see the scenario whereby the whole thing could be one big charade?
Take a hypothetical alpha-male media star of pop whose milieu necessarily is of very young women and older girls, and a career spanning several decades. He will have attracted the interest of a staggeringly large number of these very young women and older girls, and it’s actually his job to flirt or mock-flirt with them. If he’s a normal male then he will have gratefully accepted this interest and have had various levels of sexual encounter with lots of them over very many years. Given the usual communication issues between the sexes, then even if he were fairly careful there are bound to be a low proportion of encounters where, on the one hand, as the male he to some extent mis-read the mixture of coyness and come-on signals; and, on the other hand, the female involved either didn’t know her own mind or retrospectively reinterpreted the encounter in the light of subsequent regret for what happened. With the scale of interest in him, then there is every scope for a man to become to some extent a fast worker, as they say; compounding the inevitable communication problems.
Now, factor in what is known of the incidence of fabricated rape allegations – conservatively 35% on Home Office figures [see my analysis in my book, The Woman Racket]; 50%-70% according to Sir Ian Blair’s own study of the beliefs of rape investigators in the UK (and which is 50%-905 in similar studies around the world) – and factor in too that the target has been long prominent in the public eye. Then additionally take account of what is known of the false construction of memory, especially given the great elapse of time since the alleged incidents; and also the huge publicity facilitating copycat behaviour, and the chance to be the centre of considerable attention. Then there is what is known about the highly trivial reasons women and girls have for making false allegations; and bear in mind the compensation available for a ‘criminal injury’, and the low level of substantiation required to obtain this. ….. then isn’t what we have here a perfect storm to create a self-perpetuating seemingly convincing fiction?
So what about the ages of the girls/women? Well, the first point is that whatever was the case, we are not talking paedophilia here, since that the average age of onset of menarche is about age eleven. A paedophile is someone with a sexual preference for individuals under the age of puberty. The very youngest of Saville’s alleged victims was two years older than this. The category of a sexual preference for adolescent females is ‘hebophilia’, but note that there is nothing abnormal at all about a male of any age finding adolescent girls sexually attractive; nor even to have an actual preference for girls of adolescent age. Of course, almost all men are hardly in a position to act on such a preference. Men find most attractive of all females at or near their peak fertility, which is just a few years after puberty. This is or was somewhere around the 17-25 mark, but with the progressive fall in the age of puberty then this should be revised down somewhat. Note that catwalk models are recruited to start work at at thirteen or fourteen, and even twelve. The age-of-consent law of age sixteen is a relatively recent development, and reflects a Victorian manufactured scare of the supposed ‘white slave trade’, and when the average age of the onset of menarche was more like seventeen. Assuming a desire to stay within the law, and the great difficulty of accurately assessing age to within a couple of years, then most men in Saville’s position would find themselves having great difficulty in avoiding a significant error rate in choosing which girls to respond to sexually. Therefore, it is not clear that there was any great peculiarity in Saville’s sexual interests of ‘he likes ‘em young’ more than his unusual position in society whereby he could act on them.
The upshot is that the various allegations against Jimmy Saville could be largely accurate, or only party reflecting the truth, or largely or even wholly a complete invention. There is no way forward to tell which of those overall conclusions would be the accurate one.
Steve said at the very conclusion of his post:
Well, I tend to disagree. He offered three distinct conclusions about the accustations against Mr Savile: the third being the ONLY possible conclusion, according not only to his own analysis of this dreadful paedophysteria category 5 hurricane, but also ‘factor-in’ good ol’ common sense alone and it leaves:
Alan Vaughn
12 Oct 12 at 4:28 am
EDIT: However it matters not which of the three possible overall conclusions Steve suggested is actually the most accurate, because this offence (or accusation thereof), concerns ‘children’, thus guilt is automatic as soon as a mere accusation from ANYONE (i.e. not necessarily from an alleged victim), has been made.
It’s such a shame he isn’t the EU’s Paul Elam…
Alan Vaughn
12 Oct 12 at 4:49 am
Antifeminist:
One of the points I raised with Carolina Courtland was a statement that she’d made about teen sex. She had said that sex between teens was normal; but in saying so, she admitted that teens were capable of engaging in consensual sex. When confronted with that admission, she fell back on the old line that the age difference conferred some kind of unfair advantage on the younger woman. But of course, that’s feminist projection because what they really fear is the advantage younger women have over them.
Both Socon and Radfem women miss this point, and it should be totally obvious to them: the younger a woman marries, the better and more secure her position is with men. A 70 y/o man with a relatively attractive 40-something wife to whom he’s been married for 25 or more years is probably not going to bother chasing teen girls around when he has an adequate and experienced wife.
Eric
12 Oct 12 at 7:12 am
What are they waiting for to dig out the remains of the Kings from Westminster Abbey or Windsor Castle? The dodgy sexual habits of many of them is well-documented. Forensic science is now advanced enough to reconstruct whatever is necessary. Modern-day offspring could claim compensation for the harm their ancestors suffered at the Kings’ hands, and the psychological consequences passed down through generations. Claims could be lodged against those monarchs’ distant surviving (thriving) relatives, and guess Whom I’m talking about?
jack
12 Oct 12 at 7:32 am
Yes, and my point about him fulfilling a Paul Elam type role is that he is using his public identity and therefore exposing himself to all manner of dangers (a thousand times greater than any of us here) just by proposing that Savile may not have been as bad as the media are making out.
I happen to think that it’s almost certain that Savile DID fondle at least the occasional underage fan. Why? Because it’s been well documented for the last half century that everybody was at it during that era (or everybody, as Moxon said, who had the opportunities), and I have no suspicion or reason to believe that Savile was homosexual, puriently celibate, or had some kind of granny fucking fetish, preferred beastiality etc.
theantifeminist
12 Oct 12 at 7:35 am
Yes, I am sure he more than merely fondled ‘underage’ girls too, but it was an accepted norm in that sexually liberal era – I am actually old enough to remember those times, but just a wee bit young to have been be part of the action which Jimmy and millions of other men from age 16 to 60 would have enjoyed.
My point is more along the lines of those girls not seeing themselves as ‘victims’ at any time because NOT ONE of them reported anything or complained to anyone, until AFTER his passing, or more to the point: until greedy solicitors made them aware of the huge ‘victim’s’ (of a predator) compensation they could sue his estate for and be 100% certain of being awarded, thanks to Britain’s paedohysteria enabling law.
(I.e. no proof, no witness, evidence of any kind needed, just an uncorroborated accusation will guarantee it)!
That is the LIE I was referring to.
Alan Vaughn
12 Oct 12 at 8:02 am
This is a perfect example of what Moxon is talking about :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19925372
BTW, it’s ironic that the early 80′s soap opera ‘El Dorado’ that the girl starred in featured as a major story line a 50 something buisnessman moving to Spain with his 16 year old girlfriend. Just about every episode also featured gratuitous shots of a beautiful 14 year old Spanish girl, who was also one of the lead characters, in her skimpy bikini on the beach. I even distinctly remember the TV reviewer for one of the tabloids questioning whether all the ‘young female flesh’ on display would be enough to hook viewers (meaning the 14 and 16 year olds, without any moral judgement).
“as long as it’s warm and wet, that’s all that matters!” Classic!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMoD53u4kg&t=0m35s
Check out the Spanish girl at 3:04 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMoD53u4kg&t=2m55s
You’ll notice that the acting was the worst ever recorded for a major television channel – it’s amazing it still attracted millions of viewers (or not when you take another look at the Brooke Shield’s look a like and that 14 year old Spanish chica).
http://theantifeminist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/14-yo-spanish-girl-eldorado.jpg
theantifeminist
13 Oct 12 at 5:48 am
She said,
Well if she and her classmates actually did make a joke of it (or indeed even discuss it at all) for years afterwards, the reason she didn’t bring it up to any adult, may just be that it was such a non-event, she knew that no adult would even have been interested…
Besides that, let’s assume what she said is true: he only put his hands on her, he didn’t kiss her or do anything that was clearly sexual, but of course the peadosleaze dependant bbc manipulated the context of her story to make him appear to be a sexual predatory monster.
Because the BBC knows that any story told in that context SELL$ to the paedohysterical
inquisitorspublic.Alan Vaughn
13 Oct 12 at 6:11 am
Well maybe I’m a little more optimistic or ambitious perhaps…
I intend to live to at least 102 and die being murdered by a jealous
3020 something y/o husband… That is of course, presuming that in 48 years time, there will be such a thing as a man under 40 who is married to a younger woman, so maybe I’ll be murdered by a 40 something year old jealous (white-knighting mangina) husband…Alan Vaughn
13 Oct 12 at 11:01 am
QUOTE: “Unfortunately, Moxon doesn’t appear to even ‘believe’ in a ‘men’s rights’ movement as such (society doesn’t need even more of a victim culture, according to him).”
A men’s rights movement need not take on a “victim culture” mindset or rhetorical strategy…in fact IMHO it is essential that does not if it is to succeed. “Victim Culture” combined with Big Brother statism is precisely what has made the sexual trade union so effective, an effective MRM needs to destroy the victim culture not join it.
Employing a victim culture rhetorical stragtegy would be completely ineffective as both men and women as well as conseratives and left-liberals detest the idea of seeing men as victims (and people as a whole are possibly hard wired to not care much about the sexual welfare of lower status males) and will likely just tune you out or dismiss you as “crying overprivileged white male whiners” EVEN IF the specific issues that you raise may be valid…and try emphasizing “the plight of men” or “men are marginalized” or “the sexual needs of men” vs your enemies who emphasizing “THE CHILDREN”…yeah I think you can imagine how that is going to go. I don’t think I am going too far off on a limb here to also suggest that adopting a victim culture mentality would be a great way fo the MRM to be sucked into the Thrapeutic State/Victim Culture matrixand get co-opted.
A more effective strategy for a sex positive MRM would be “These laws and cultural sanctions impede our ability to pursue our happiness AND WE WANT THEM REMOVED!” and to engage in aggressive, hard-hitting, fact filled debunking of feminist/femiservative/white knight/pedohysteric false propaganda. Speaking form personal experience during the 1990s when i was a high school student and later on a college student I participated in many debates regarding gender issues…I can tell you that the least effective strategy was the “me too” inclusive victimization and appeal to empathy strategy and that is ESPECIALLY true when dealing with females. Try seeking empathy from women for your “plight as man” and most of them will shreik like banshees (how dare you complain when women have it so hard) and tell you to “grow some balls” it does not matter if you otherwise did a great job of highlighting your issues. I also have to say that black and hispanic males were far more likely to be outspoken against women’s activists and for sexual freedom than were males of any other race (there were many debates where it was several black/brown guys and me the lone white guy vs the majority of the females in the class) and guess what…they recieved the same “overprivileged whiner” emotional shaming assaults and dismissals that I did. (I bring this up only to show why I would be skeptical that employing minority males as spokepersons for the MRM would make a victim based rhetorical strategy any more effective). A take no bullshite, ballsy, hard-hitting fact based debunking strategy is the best way to advocate for men’s issues and be treated with respect and that’s ESPECIALLY true with women.
The Highwayman
13 Oct 12 at 5:45 pm
I agree entirely Highwayman, but if I remember correctly the part of ‘The Woman Racket’ in which he talks about this, he doesn’t even seem to like the term ‘men’s rights’. He appears to think that any ‘men’s rights movement’ by definition will be part of a victim culture.
However, he did support Tom Martin by attending the debate he took part in at University College London.
BTW, were you aware of this book from 1918? : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Women-Vendors-Roscoe-Burdette-Tobias/dp/1177101602/
And here is a fascinating review of it by noneother than Ernest Belfort Bax :
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1918/12/woman.htm
theantifeminist
13 Oct 12 at 6:42 pm
Never heard of that book thanks for the link it sounds like an interesting read.
The Highwayman
13 Oct 12 at 7:32 pm
Alan:
LOL That could be true too. What I was thinking that a man whose middle-aged wife is still fairly attractive and already knows how to handle him bed may not take a chance on breaking in a ‘younger model’ at that age.
I do agree though that when I’m 70, I probably stand a much better chance of being burned at the stake by paedohystrics who are infuriated at a 30-40 age difference and consider it rape.
Eric
14 Oct 12 at 2:09 am