MRA against men! Most MRA (men’s rights activist) actively support draconian prison sentences for men #4

Most men’s rights activists actively and vehemently support the relentless century-old feminist agenda 1 2 3 against male sexuality.

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)

This is the 4TH in a series of articles about the Child Sex Trauma Myth (#1 disclaimer, #2, #3)



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” [1] [2] [3] [4] 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

Human-Stupidity was blocked, chided, and banned at leading men’s rights sites r/mensrights and AVoiceForMen.

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’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

So feminists have won the war on underage sex repression, so much that even MRA (men’s rights activists) don’t dare to even touch the topic.

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.

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

statutory-rape-adNowadays the girl has 3 options to totally avoid any consequences of sex

  • effective birth control,
  • abortion,
  • and giving baby away for adoption

The young man has much higher risks, as his only options are

  1. trust in the girl’s honesty that she is on birth control. If she lies, it is HIS problem.
  2. condoms with high failure rate, or
  3. 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? 

See also




Follows one of our comments that led to’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 or of crazy

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.

  1. If *consensual child sex abuse is fairly non-traumatic (#1 disclaimer, #2, #3),
  2. then that fact would cast enormous doubt on feminist male sex repressive trauma theory regarding 
  1. Harassment,
  2. prostitution,
  3. teenage sexuality,
  4. and the voodoo theory of child porn,


Adolescent sexuality was widely accepted until 1960’s

Even after the relentless almost century-old feminist work of raising the  age of consent [ 1 2 3], these laws were rarely taken seriously in the 1960ies.

In the 1960’ies, nobody could have dreamt of today’s teenage sexuality and child porn hysteria.

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

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.

12 thoughts on “MRA against men! Most MRA (men’s rights activist) actively support draconian prison sentences for men #4”

  1. Must we write off the entire men’s rights movement just for the failure of many to realize the truth about one of the biggest taboos ever, child sex? This issue is a big pill to swallow, give it some time and keep on speaking the truth. More and more men will come around.

  2. You should make clear in the article that Angry Harry certainly does not support the child abuse industry, and is the greatest MRA who ever lived. It might appear obvious from your preceeding article, but perhaps there are people arriving directly at this one and not reading the previous piece (angry harry on ‘tea abuse’).

    Your use of Avoiceformen banner, and the words ‘if this is the best that mras can do’ below it, is very misleading.

    I also wouldn’t try set up Angry Harry and Paul Elam in opposition against each other – it won’t work. I don’t doubt that Angry Harry has reservations regarding the possible adoption of the child abuse industry by the MRM, but he also very much respects what Elam is doing for the movement as a whole (and so do I).

    1. I fully agree with you.

      Paul Elam’s work is admirable, he has amazing courage regarding jury nullification.

      Except, well, he actively supports the child and adolescent abuse hysteria.

      He could just refuse to deal with it. “No comment”.

      Or he could just carefully support obvious injustices that even mainstream media attacks. Instead he actively favors these policies that make a criminal out of almost every man or adolescent boy, though most don’t get caught and arrested.

  3. Really? Well do you wonder why Paul Elam isn’t particularly keen on discussing sex hysteria or the age of consent when the primary goal of the first 19th century feminists was raising the age of consent, criminalizing prostitution, and in general, controlling male sexuality? It seems to me if you think it’s a good idea to continue the work of feminists, which has always had the declared aim of controlling the sexual behaviour of men, then you should be supporting feminist sex hysteria and Paul Elam’s support for it (as bridge building, particularly when it inolves bringing in feminist child abuse hysterics such as Typhonblue).

    My point was that all the females supporting AVfM are, unsurpringly, very much pro sex repression (I realise that you believe there are millions of middle-aged women ready to demand the age of consent is lowered). Therefore, his statement that most of his donors are female is somewhat disturbing.

    BTW, I also have nothing against Paul Elam and respect the great work he is doing – aside from actively supporting the feminist abuse industry. I also believe he has the right to disallow any topics which he feels compromise his position to lead an effective activist organisation, and as you ignored his wishes repeatedly, it was understandable he finally banned you. However, actively supporting the feminist abuse industry, and allowing women ‘mRAs’ to validate it, is another matter.

    I’m not so sure Angry Harry is for ‘maintaining the old sex roles’. He certainly argues that the past roles were more oppressive to men than women, and were a socio-biological necessity for most of history. He says that men and science have ‘liberated women’, not feminism.

    1. We are pretty much in agreement regarding

      Paul Elam’s work is admirable, in general.

      Except for his strong and active support for the feminist sex hysteria. He could just leave it aside, like “no comment”.

      And this is the topic of this post.

  4. Outside the sex hysteria I don’t have too many problems with Paul Elam

    The blueprint for bridge building doesn’t look that bad to me.

    The general line towards true equal rights is quite acceptable.

    For that to happen, we must not undo feminism, but simply do what they failed to do. We must see women as responsible adults worthy of earned respect, and men as something other than pack animals placed on earth for women’s convenience. Well, that would pretty much unado feminism on its own, but you get my point.

    One can have somewhat different attitudes. Angry Harry is rougher and a bit more towards maintaining the old sex (ahem … gender) roles.

    But the total rift is the sex repression, age of consent, and falsified research regarding child sex trauma.

    There the Paul Elam camp is totally in favor of the feminist main line. And that is my point.

  5. From the Paul Elam article :

    “After getting over a little bit of the shock of witnessing the initial rush of female donors that kicked off our donation drive, it left something else on my mind.”

    Women are basically paying Paul Elam to validate the child abuse industry.

    1. MRM has succumbed to manginism
      In the following article some “MRM’ mangina called Paul Elam claims the purpose of the men’s rights movement is to liberate men from gender roles:

      This kind of thing seems to be typical of so-called MRM writing. Other MRM writers say they want equality between men and women. This is ridiculous because women can’t think for themselves and so are naturally the slaves of men. If men in their lives such as husbands and fathers don’t assert control over them then, by default, elite men. The elite will then use that control to diminish the status of the majority of men who will be shat on by everyone, just like now. Calling for equality is in practice the same as calling for feminism. I don’t know whether the MRM has been deliberately infiltrated by politically correct sleazebags or whether Western culture is so deeply screwed that it started out that way, but either way the MRM would appear to be a lost cause.


      The sad thing is that the above radical conservative would probably be totally opposed to my writings about ssexual liberty.

  6. Last September, Paul Elam published an article called ‘The MRM Blueprint for Bridge-Building.’ In it, he expressly states that women need to lead the MRM and that feminism and the MRM were working for the same goals and purposes.

    Shortly after, AVfM brought Dean Esmay on board: an unapologitic Obama supporter who fully backed Obama’s Healthcare Plan with its provisions to define ‘dependent children’ as up to age 26.

    Is it surprising that they would ban you for daring to question the AOC? There’s no room in their quasi-feminist world-view for such an opinion.

    In fact, AVfM doesn’t speak to mens’ rights at all. Most of the articles there are written by women. Most of them advocate applying feminist legal and social standards to men.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.