MHRA clueless about sex laws: AvoiceForMen victimizes boys

 

Fathers rights defenders at AvoiceForMen call themselves MHRA, men’s human rights activists. They defend the rights of fathers and family men, and even some rights for boys. Glaringly absent is the defense of sexual rights for men and boys. Feminists and religious zealots have united to create draconic sex laws. The declared goal of the suffragettes was to use the power of the vote to increase the age of consent and to close brothels and to end prostitution.

These clueless male equal rights feminists MHRA put up this nice touching movie about a 16 year old boy with his jailbait girlfriend. No mention about the serious dangers this boy is in:

MHRA put up this nice touching movie about a 16 year old boy with his jailbait girlfriend. "A 16-year old’s tribute to Father’s Day". No mention about the serious dangers this boy is in, due to the sex laws MHRA and feminists wholeheartedly agree on.

This boy in this movie is one or more of the following

  1. a rapist
  2. a rape victim: Boy so happy about sex with 8 year older women that he brags about it. Off to prison she goes.
  3. both a rapist and a rape victim: Girl 13, charged as sex offender and victim at the same time
  4. celibate
  5. or lucky enough to be in a state where the age of consent is 16 or lower and/or there are Romeo and Juliet laws in force, AND he did an ID check of his girlfriend with a detective making sure the ID is not fake  (Government-emitted ID proves she is 20. Men could not know she is 15, but will go to prison for underage sex, child porn) AND
    1. and he does not cross state lines to have sex, violating US federal law
    2. and he does not take his girlfriend into a different state where their sex would be illegal. 
    3. Furthermore he has to be careful at his next birthday, it is possible that at his 17th or especially 18th birthday he falls out of Romeo and Juliet law protection.

For example, Tennis champion Andre Agassi was warned to behave when he and his then girlfriend underage Anna Kournikova were playing in California. It does not matter that the age of consent in Europe is mostly 16 years old, their sex in California would be a felony and poor Anna needs to be protected from traumatic (statutory) rape.

Girls get victimized too: a 15 year old British girl was heartbroken when her lover got a 5 1/2 year prison term for having yielded to her incessant year long come-ons.

And yes, MHRA at AVM defend these asinine laws that mainly victimize men and boys, and actively kick out those that defend boys and men’s rights to have consensual sex. This is especially damaging, because who will defend men if the foremost defenders of men’s rights agree with imprisonment for men who do what our forefathers did for 100 000 years, sex with nubile post pubertal young women.

As a result of 100 years of feminist struggle, men can be imprisoned for decades for looking at naked cartoon drawings of Homer Simpson’s underage cartoon children, or nude elves, or photos of naked 24 year olds with pony tails who could pass for 17 years.

Let us suppose this movie’s boy has the legal right to kiss, fondle, pet and engage with sex with his girl friend. Then he needs to be warned:

Or if she sends him nude photos of herself (sexting) then she produces child porn and he possesses child porn. According to the voodoo theory of child porn, he is victimizing her whenever he looks at her photo and thus deserves prison.

But it is quite difficult, though, to know if he has the right to engage in even the slightest sexual behavior with her. 17 year old fellow black brother Genarlow Wilson, for example, got 10 years in prison for getting a blow job from a 15 year old girl.

There are still plenty of US states with no Romeo and Juliet laws, where all sex with under 18 year olds is a felony. If your 16 year old black friend wants to stay out of prison and picks an 18 year old girlfriend, then the Men’s Right’s Activists at AVoiceForMen will happily crucify her as a child rapist and make sure she gets a long prison term, so the 16 year old *child boy gets saved from sex trauma.

You must read the this post in its entirety to appreciate  the immense complexity of local laws, state lines and international travel regarding teenage sexuality.

And the male feminists at AVoiceForMen actively support this status. Instead of lobbying for unshackling male sexuality, they want to imprison the rare 15 year old cheer leader that has sex with a 17 year old *child.

Sex positive Men’s Right Activists like Human Stupidity or The Antifeminist get kicked out and banned as apostates. Even the father of men’s rights, Angry Harry almost got kicked out from there

In addition to the special regulations for minors, our boy has to respect the laws that caused sex to be a mine field for adults:

Get a lawyer before courting: 34 precautions before risking sex with a woman

Underage boys who want to court, kiss, chat and groom on the internet need a specialized lawyer, a detective do double-check the partner’s ID at all times.

As a result of 100 years of feminist struggle, men can be imprisoned for decades for looking at naked cartoon drawings of Homer Simpson’s underage cartoon children, or nude elves, or photos of naked 24 year olds with pony tails who could pass for 17 years.

Share

Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

15 thoughts on “MHRA clueless about sex laws: AvoiceForMen victimizes boys”

  1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    There is a significant issue that is being missed here, but one that the MHRM is fully cognizant of, is that as long as these laws primarily affect only men, society in general doesn’t care.

    Example:
    19y/o male and 16y/o female have sex. Due to the feminist narrative society sees him as a vicious predator, she victim of manipulation beyond her comprehension.

    This mentality is so pervasive in our culture that even in situations where the genders are revered, the male is still held to higher standard of responsibility. (There are precedents in several states where male victims of statutory rape are forced to pay child support.)

    Until such time as both cases are treated the same, the “male perpetrator/female victim” paradigm will continue.

    Those in the MHRM understand this, so even if they detest arbitrary AoC laws, they will continue to advocate for equal prosecution, because they understand that unless women suffer equally, society will not change. Another facet to this is that if the MHRM advocated for changes to AoC laws as a means of protecting boys from a biased system, feminists would leap on this to label the entire community as pedophiles and pedophile supporters. The pedophile label carries such a huge social stigma that it would set the movement back decades, if not destroy it outright.

    It’s a shitty position to take, but the alternatives would likely result in even worse conditions so I understand it.

    1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      @Yeah Nope, we are pretty much in agreement. The underage sex taboo is so terrible that MHRA have reasons to avoid the topic, so they can advance their other topics.

      But, either MHRA are perfect actors, or they really believe in their support for age of consent laws and equal persecution for both genders (sexes!) for these imaginary victimless crimes. Equal injustice for all.

      But, as the antifeminist states, MHRA’s support for age of consent laws, no matter how illogical they are , no matter how different AoC is from state to state, actually helps to solidify them. If both feminists and mHRA support age of consent laws, then obviously here to stay.

      Also, all during human history, until today, men are usually at least 1-2 years, if not 10 or more years older then their female lovers. So these AoC laws always will victimize 10 times as many men then women.

  2. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @theantifeminist. Thanks for informing me that this was the reason for eviction, because I really had no clue:

    Fourth: this will be unpopular. So what, if he did it. We are talking about a minute, about touch and maybe a finger. Seemingly no injuries. Why would he get 7 years? yes, it is non consensual, and yes, the kid most likely got traumatized by mom’s panic. I would not opt for total impunity, but something substantially under 7 years. And protection from prison rape, please.”

    So what is the minimum penalty I would be allowed to argue for? If I said one year of prision is enough for a one-minute-indecently-touching-a-child-episode, would that be still acceptable? Or what is the minimum penalty you would demand?

    I know, I have a compulsion to say the truth. It is politically unwise. If you want to pursue your agenda of legalizing post pubertal sexuality, discussing penalties for 2 minute sexual groping of a 2,4,6 year old gives your enemies another reason to attack you.

    The same as Paul Elam: discussing any under 18 sexuality gives people cause to attack him, detracting from family court cruelty, and false rape accusations, etc.

    And even though you know that a 1 minute consensual groping of a young child is probably non-traumatic, until mom gets panicked, I understand you want to refrain from discussions about that. Just as Paul Elam.

    Paul Elam kicked me out for a pretty moderate comment about some really absurd issue. I already had learned to refrain from promoting an age of consent under 16. What I cited was something as preposterous as imprisoning a man for possessing child porn of himself wanking when he was 12, or photographing a legal 17 year old wife, or something. Similarly here.

    So if I said that a first time offender should get some slap on the wrist and some therapy, then you would finally feel justified for having me kicked out.

    I find it totally out of proportion to get 7 years for 1 minute consensual groping, or for possession of a nude photo. I would reserve decade long prison sentences for violent crimes, for beatings, mutilations, forcible rapes, Mr. Fritz’s long term slavery abuse, etc.

    So if you accuse me of being politically unwise, I agree.

    It is like Galileo Galilei, had he said the total truth that there is no God and thus the Bible is not God’s word, he certainly would have been burned alive. Having said some part of the truth, and veiling it in biblical terms, he managed to survive and eventually change the world’s knowledge.

  3. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I would add also that 3 days prior to you leaving that comment, I was woken up on a Sunday morning to another of your comments informing with the great news that ‘paedophiles’ in the UK are soon to be treated as ‘terrorists’. And yet your brain cannot comprehend that in such an environment, I would rather not have you expressing your views in such clumsy language at my site.

    And yes your tactical awareness is quite on the level of a mental disability. For example, believing that your meme – ‘banging babies is harmless’ is going to be more effective in fighting the feminist war on male sexuality than something like ‘all feminists are rapists’ (which is already an just a more honest inversion of one of the most virulent memes in history).

  4. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    The reason isn’t so much about ‘not toeing the line 100%’, and more about your insane inability to show basic common sense and courtesy to myself and my readers in avoiding crass and damaging statements (I’m referring to your ‘so what, if he did it’ in relation to a father sexually abusing his daughter against her will (not that this father did actually sexually abuse his daughter)).

  5. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    @Human-Stupidity – this is your comment that finally got you banned. I did not publish it but I will post it here. It was in response to a story I highlighted concerning a Spanish father wrongly imprisoned for several years after being falsely accused of abusing his young daughter :

    “To add:
    First: if this is a normal decent man, such a behavior is quite unlikely. If it is the biological father, it is extremely unlikely. Like the Loch Ness monster. Only pedohysterics expect normal decent men to possibly act this way.

    Second: no due process, no proof beyond reasonable doubt necessary

    Third: no legal proceedings against the scheming mother. Should be under the same standard of flimsy proof as the man’s conviction.

    Fourth: this will be unpopular. So what, if he did it. We are talking about a minute, about touch and maybe a finger. Seemingly no injuries. Why would he get 7 years? yes, it is non consensual, and yes, the kid most likely got traumatized by mom’s panic. I would not opt for total impunity, but something substantially under 7 years. And protection from prison rape, please.”

  6. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    The world has gone insane. Terrifying to be a man in the 21st century West. I see Rolf Harris has been inexplicably found guilty on a case that should never even have made it to court. An 84 year old man’s life in ruins because of the utterly unproveable claims of lying, gold-digging, fantasist bitches. The lot of them should be f*****g strung up. Modern society is an absolute disgrace.

  7. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    HS:
    Speaking of Antifeminist, he’s recently done an expose on their hypocrisy on this very subject:

    http://theantifeminist.com/if-a-voice-for-men-cares-about-boys-then-campaign-to-have-salo-120-days-of-sodom-banned/

    Which shows really that the MHRM is much more concerned with advancing homosexual rights than protecting boys, as they claim.

    P.S.: As a side note, there were other reasons for getting banned at Antifeminist’s than the one you state; however I do you two put aside your differences soon because you both do good service.

  8. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    MRAs are misogynists who hate not only feminists but women generally, especially white females. Their hatred of women and lust for vengeance is so obsessive and virulent and pathological that they’re willing to destroy the lives of myriads of male first offenders convicted of a nonviolent and usually victimless and malum prohibitum offense in order to destroy the lives of a much smaller number of women who permit biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in de facto consensual relationships. If they were more concerned with “men’s rights” and simple fairness than obsessed with hating women and absurdly defining them as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for transporting young men under statutory age to sexual paradise, they’d oppose these draconian and iniquitous laws, not only the long prison sentences but also the quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, including registration for life as uniquely execrable and dangerous criminals.

  9. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Interesting comments about these male sex positive issues can always be found at the site of the Antifeminist.

    http://theantifeminist.com/necrophiliac-lynching-of-jimmy-savile-continues/

    You can find a few more interesting sites at his blogroll.

    Unfortunately these half dozen sex positive blogs do not cooperate. On the contrary, I was finally booted and blocked at the antifeminist’s site for not 100.000% toeing his line. Very sad.f

    Remember, feminist solidarity defends murderesses, penis cutters, falsifies academic research about domestic violence, dominates the United Nations and the US presidency with fake trafficking victim stories, and more.

    And men keep haggling about petty things. No chance for salvation ..

  10. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I would love if this post became more known.

    Anyone would bother telling the people at AVM? Probably would be kicked out like I did and some others.

    Or any MHRA has the guts to defend their position? To allow that poor boy to fall prey of the sex laws, without even being warned and without receiving an education in sex laws pertinent to him.

    Of course, if there were such an sex education, the absurdity of these laws would be exposed to adolescents and parents alike.

  11. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I know it’s shocking!I was at an activity centre when a group of teenagers came in one took a liking to me, i smiled at her on my way
    out,though i could find myself in trouble with the teacher you never know,allot of these male teachers seem to be in denial,they seem
    to have taken on a feminine role,if they want to delude themselves that men cant be attracted to 13/14yo come of age girls.that we have
    been selecting for thousands of years that’s their problem,don’t shove your feminist pseudo science down my throat.

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.