They became MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) after being stiffed by family court, divorce law, false accusations by their wives. They often have daughters. Thus these MRA are totally protective and sexually conservative, repressive and not libertarian.
These MRA totally agree with feminist inspired laws that cruelly imprison men for victimless crimes of *consensual sex with adolescents, for visits to voluntary prostitutes and for possessions patterns of 0’s and 1’s on their hard drive defined as child porn (see voodoo theory, disclaimer, Robert Kurzban)
MRA (Men’s rights activists) rightly assail biased anti-male laws regarding
Domestic Violence, *rape, due process, false rape accusations, child support, divorce.
But MRA are in full support of anti-male sex laws.
Even MRA are avid supporters of the feminist Child Sex Trauma Myth (#4)
Strict liability to compound the injustice
Feminists fought for the increase of age of consent and the subsequent criminalization of normal male post-pubertal sexuality. This is further enhanced by unjust Strict liability*
Strict liability crime”     means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a minor) you are guilty and will be convicted. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter. If you had sex with a 17 year old, you are a *child *rapist.
Human-Stupidity hostilized, warned, banned by MRA
Check how Human-Stupidity’s moderate and reasonable comment 1, 2 led to banning from the otherwise excellent MRA activism site AVoiceForMen. My comments 1, 2 at the excellent article cited below (in #5) were understood by a few, but misunderstood by Paul Elam, who stands for many sex-repressive MRA’s
Can you share my outrage on this Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution or this Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them | 2
The comment above led to Human_Stupidity.com’s definite expulsion from the site of the most active and very representative MRA, AVoiceForMen.
If these are the best defenders of men’s rights, we have a long way to go. Tens of thousands of men will be singled out for daily anal rape by common criminal prison gangs who hate "*child *rapists ".
Those prison rapists certainly will not understand the fine distinction between *consensual sex with 17 or 15 year olds and "real forcible rape of a real child" (in the classic sense of the words pre-pubertal *child and forcible *rape) . Even leading MRA Paul Elam succumbed to feminist brain washing and refuses to understand such obvious differences.
Paul Elam might even understand it. But he chooses not to enter a hopeless fight After all the prestigious peer reviewed Rind Study was rejected unanimously by both the US congress and senate. Academic research decided by politicians
Our pleading for unity among MRA leads to expulsion, not introspection and self analysis
AVoiceForMen pleaded for unity among MRAs. So we tried to help to raise awareness that they, themselves, actively abet and support the persecution of men. We did not manage to raise such awareness See our unwelcome comment further below.
Child Porn laws made specifically to criminalize men
Why may women legally devour Child abuse books by Amazon but inadvertent possession of a picture (usually by a man) is a heinous crime punishable by decades in jail? (Judge Weinstein, voodoo theory) What about the children photographed on the cover of the child abuse books?
Finally, I was shopping at ASDA (Wal-Mart) last week. They have a very small selection of books on sale. And I presume that they only sell those books that are in particularly high demand by the public. About 20% of the titles of the entire range were to do with ‘abuse’, and another 20% were to do with serial killers, murderers, torturers and, in general, ‘evil’ people. You know the type. angryharry.com/es_chris_langham.htm
Female pornography, the romance novel, is socially very acceptable. We specifically criminalize male preference for pictures. The handsome, witty, intelligent, rich, young physician, hero of a typical female romance novel humbles the average male and unrealistically raises women’s expectations.
Age of consent laws (sponsored by feminists) specifically target and criminalize men
Since long before biblical times, women choose older men for relationship and marriage. Thus, automatically,age of consent laws ensnare mostly men.
Girls mature faster: marriageable age was lower for girls throughout history
One could make a very strong argument to imprison a 16 year old mature female for seducing a hormonally challenged mentally more immature 18 year old male.
Nowadays, sex has more traumatic consequences for boys then for girls
- effective birth control,
- and giving baby away for adoption
The young man has much higher risks, as his only options are
- trust in the girl’s honesty that she is on birth control. If she lies, it is HIS problem.
- condoms with high failure rate, or
- 20 years of government enforced child support payments. Enforced by debtor’s prison . No guaranteed rights to ever see the child. No opt-out abortion, no opt-out giving baby away for adoption
The problem with the adolescent male navigating that difficult transition from puberty to young adulthood is a disconnect in the timing of an abrupt increase in gonadal hormones that occurs in both sexes at the time of puberty, but which for boys produces intense emotional liability, and high intensity feelings, while the part of the brain that develops risk assessment and emotional control and stability, lags well behind. Girls do not have a similar retardation of that center of the brain and therefore are much less likely to incur the kinds of disasters that face adolescent boys until they are 20. 4 5
We understand concern about underage sexuality
One can discuss the wisdom of early pregnancy, of early sex. One might argue that early sex in Holland is less problematic, due to intense sex education and social acceptance. One might very well favor fathers preventing daughters from sex at young age.
But: do we need government to legislate and impose draconian punishment?
- Young Lovers or Sex Offender and Victim?
- The Age of Consent: When Young Love Is a Sex Crime: Man Labeled a Sex Offender for Consensual Sex With Girlfriend, Then 15, Now His Wife and rickyslife.com/
Follows one of our comments that led to Human-Stupidity.com’s expulsion
I always wondered why MRA have to severely fight among themselves. I totally agree that unity would be good. Unity within main topics, mild disagreement on other topics.
And I cannot hold back, feel compelled to blurt out the truth:
the major source of militant MRA dis-unity stems right from the corner of avoiceformen’s supporters.
It is the MRAs that agree with one of the main tenets of feminism: increased age of consent and repression of male sexuality. These MRA viciously oppose the sexual liberation MRA movement.
These MRA agree with one of the main issues feminism always fought for: imprisonment for mostly men who have sex with 17 year old wife to be, for 15 year old boys that have sex with 14 year old girls. Even for men who checked ID, who were falsified by the proper government. It is called strict liability: it does not matter if you picked up that mature looking 17 year old in a 21 and over bar. Go to prison.
These MRA agree with feminists that it is ok to mete out decades of prison, up to life imprisonment for men that possess files of 0 and 1 depicting nude 16 year old girls.
These MRA who agree with feminists and manginas who re-defined childhood as up to 17 year olds.
These MRA who accept feminist re-definition of child porn as 15 year old non-nudes dressed in leotards, gyrating sensuously in dances. (Google Knox vs. USA)
Those MRA who accept and actively favor that laws against underage sex now are applied to underage KISSING and other “indecencies”
Those who prompted Jay Hammers to close down his blog for his sacrilege of opposing Gulags for adolescent sex.
Note that the sexual liberation MRA do not fight fathers rights. They do not fight for imprisonment for child support default. They do not oppose any issues that father’s rights MRA here fight for.
The moralist father’s rights MRA actively repress and fight MRA who are for sexual liberation. These sexual liberation MRA actually have similar goals then a major part of 1960′s sexual liberation feminists.
I want to stress that lowering age of consent does not mean that you have to be in favor of your daughter having sex with older guys. It means that the government should stay out of such private affairs and that fathers are responsible for educating their daughters, accepting their daughter’s choices or keeping an eye on them.
It also does not mean that you don’t have to accept any crazy idea of Jay Hammers, agree with every point of the antifeminist.com or of crazy Human-Stupidity.com
But one should stress the shared goals and politely discuss divergences. Preferably also not favor imprisonment of men for thought crimes such as possession of pictures.
Feminists have no problem embracing and supporting murderous women, dick slicers, husband killers and scum writers. They are united. They know how to carefully disagree with husband killers then then support reduced responsibility.
Male MRA create factions and fights about minor issues.
Sorry, I could not keep quiet and read this unopposed.
Rather, I agree totally to the content, that MRA should be united.
I want to point out that the active hostile division or MRA comes from RIGHT HERE.
Stop hostilizing other MRA and stop dividing the movement and actively promote unity. Stop siding with part of feminist agenda fighting against other MRA.
Stop appeasing the coalition of conservative religious right and moralistic feminists. You were taken in by their shaming agenda.
Scared of being seen in the company of “pedophiles” (as re-defined by feminists).
Pedophiles, before re-definition meant those attracted to pre-pubertal CHILDREN (before re-definition of “children” as up to 17). Pedophilia is a very different issue then de-criminalization of adolescent sexuality. Of keeping police out of adolescent bedrooms, preventing them from what most of your grand-grandmothers and fathers did. 1,
In spite of being careful and not mentioning the worst taboo, child sex trauma myth, we were expelled. We explain once more,
The child sex trauma myth is the foundation
for all other feminist sex repression lies.
- If *consensual child sex abuse is fairly non-traumatic (#1 disclaimer, #2, #3),
- then that fact would cast enormous doubt on feminist male sex repressive trauma theory regarding
Adolescent sexuality was widely accepted until 1960’s
In the 60’ies British Newspapers had nude 15 year old girls on page 3 and German news stands had magazines with nudes of all ages frolicking at the beaches. Check your attic, your newspaper collection might render you mandatory 5 years in prison for every photo of a nude 15 year old.
According to the voodoo theory of *child pornography, these poor girls get victimized each time someone looks at their old photo. Even if they already died of old age at age 70 or more, they are victimized constantly.(Samantha Fox,
14 year old groupies happily toured with Rock stars and girls in low teens frequently married famous people (like Charlie Chaplin). Nobody would ever have imagined that feminists would have managed to declare 17 year olds to be children, manipulate language to re-define *rape, *consent, *child and thus imprison men for decades for consensual sex or possession of movies of 15 year olds dressed in Leotards (Knox vs. USA, Judge Weinstein, Copine scale), for possession manga drawings, of photos of 23 year old women in ponytails who appear underage.
The absurdity of today’s child porn laws
It is quite amazing how MRA’s accept men being locked up for decades for possession of so called child porn which usually is neither porn nor contains a *child and consists of nothing then computer files with 0’s and 1’s that possess voodoo magic power. Even Judge Weinstein complains about insane sentencing guidelines that mandate higher punishment for possession of pictures then for actual child rape.
In my opinion, with regard to child sexual abuse, the motivation for this comes from the fact that paedophilia really means an obsessive interest in pre-pubescent children, but the sexual trade union aren’t really concerned with true paedophilia at all (this is a true perversion, and older women aren’t threatened by pervert’s interest in 5 year olds) – all they are concerned with is pathologising and criminilizing the natural male sexual interest in ‘youth’.
If you read the official government guidelines for punishing downloaders of child porn (which of course was drawn up by the likes of the NSPCC) it’s striking (to any sane person) that absolutely no mention is made of age. So, for example, clicking on a porn tube video of a 17 year old girl (or a woman who just looks 17) fucking her boyfriend is as bad, according to these guidelines, and should be as punished as severely, as watching a video you just received from a fellow paedophile of a 5 year old girl having sex with an adult.
In fact, the guidelines are even more absurd than that. The ‘Channel Seventeen’ adult movies that were the most popular in Europe only a decade ago, and which show 16 and 17 year old Dutch girls happily fucking their boyfriends or older men, are now rated level 4 (out of 5) in the categorization of child porn seriousness. However, a picture of a 3 year old being posed naked is only level 1 (the lowest) – the same as a picture of a topless 16 year old Samantha Fox or even a young looking 20 year old in a bikini and pigtails, and even a video of a 6 year old masturbating would only be level 2.
Source: theantifeminist 3 Sep 11 at 10:55 pm