Men’s Rights As A Pro Sex Offender Movement

I recently attempted to initiate a discussion on /r/mensrights regarding Men’s Rights As A Pro Sex Offender Movement. I figured it’s worth reproducing here too for my regular readers. There were one or two reasonable replies – particularly the suggestions that Men’s Rights is not ready to tackle the dangerous ‘paedohysteria’ topic yet. However, my concern is that some MRAs seem genuinely paedohysterical themselves, which is a worry, even to the point that they post links to research conducted by evil organisations like the puritanical ECPAT (who are worryingly influencial, I think, and receive next to no criticism). I seriously worry that the child protection lobby are managing to ‘sabotage’ Men’s Rights and will – as is already happening – start talking about boys being sold into sexual slavery so that they can masquerade as being MRA-compliant.

Article as posted on /r/mensrights
Men’s Rights As A Pro Sex Offender Movement

I feel there are some divisions within the men’s rights movement as to whether sex offender rights are a men’s rights issue or not. I’m going to argue here that they are as it is feminists who have introduced all the laws and underlying ideology used to convict men of sexual offences with particularly barbaric punishments.

Before getting too much into why sex offenders are a men’s rights issue I’d like to get into what is morally wrong & dangerous about the current approach to sex offenders. In the United States today there are nearly a million men who bear the label of sex offender. Sex offenders are listed on public registries and are generally considered to not have human rights. They are restricted in where they can go and what they can do.  There are good reasons why some have compared public sex offender registries to the pink triangle and yellow star in Nazi Germany. Indeed, there are more sex offenders in America today than there were homosexual sex offenders in Nazi Germany.

This should be a red flag for anyone seriously concerned with civil liberties.

Now with that raising serious civil liberties questions, why should sex offenders be a men’s rights issue specifically? Well, for one, sex offenders are overwhelmingly male.

Why are sex offenders overwhelmingly male? Because sexual offence legislation is designed – by feminists – to target male sexuality. For instance, men are most attracted to younger girls. Age of consent, child pornography, sexual grooming laws and so forth are all intended to entrap men on this point. Yet it is perfectly normal for men to be attracted to teenage girls. Studies have even shown that more men than you might think are actually real paedophiles – that is – they are attracted not just to teenagers but to little children (see ). This reality – that most men are probably paedophiles (certainly if attraction to teenagers is considered paedophilia) – even inspired the film called “Are All Men Paedophiles?”.

Another aspect that should worry us is the thought crime aspect and the way men are not allowed to be around children. Feminists have massively broadened the scope of what is ‘sexual’. The phrase “don’t you dare touch my child” comes to mind. Even during the centuries that homosexuality was illegal laws tended to center around clear sexual acts such as buggery and such. This is why men weren’t afraid of going near other men back then. However, today a tap on the shoulder can be considered sexual. As anything sexual is a heinous crime worse than murder touching a child on the shoulder can be worse than murder. The “unwritten rule” though is that it is OK for women to touch children and (maybe) OK for a father to touch their own child. But if you’re another man then you could go to prison for a long time. I believe there was a case around a decade ago of a man who was placed on the sex offender register just because he pulled a child off the road after nearly running him/her over. The result? Men increasingly stay well away from children.

Now some of you are probably going to start going on about consent and claim that, despite the fact that the laws are structured to specifically punish men, men must still be punished because: paedohysteria. However, it is feminists who have twisted the definition of consent to their aim. Concepts such as “coercion” and an “imbalance of power” are all very feminist concepts to muddy the waters and criminalise acts that caused little or no harm. Historically “ages of consent” and even “consent” as a concept at all featured to a far lower degree in sexual offence legislation. Some countries clearly defined the ‘heinous’ crime of rape to be only where force is used – none of this drunk rape gibberish. Ages of consent were far lower – up until 1999 the age of consent in Spain was 12. It is now 16. Up until the late 19th century the age of consent in the American State of Delaware was only 7! Similar patterns for the age of consent are mirrored all over the United States, Europe and the world. It was feminists that raised the age of consent because they see all sex as rape. If you believe in due process then you will also believe that a law must be both quite clear in what it criminalises but also clear in *why* it criminalises it. Criminalising clear violent acts where the individual concerned has suffered provable harm seems to make some sense. However, criminalising acts where the individual concerned has suffered no provable harm at all or even has wanted to defend the ‘perpetrator’ in court (yes – that happens a lot in AOC cases) is neither fair, right nor does it represent proper ‘due process’.

Yes I have gone on a lot about the paedohysteria side of the sex offender mass incarceration experiment. However, paedohysteria is essentially the frontline ideology in the feminist war on men. It dominates the news and convictions like nobody’s business. Apparently any law labelled an ‘anti-paedophile’ law is beyond criticism! This is dangerous and has got to the point that even many MRAs refuse to criticise paedohysteria except in some of the most vague terms. There is, of course, increasing momentum for other anti-male sex offender laws, such as sexual harassment laws, anti-prostitution laws, affirmative consent laws, dubious notions of ‘sex trafficking’ and so on. I believe all – not just some – of these sex offender laws must be opposed.

In short, if you think men’s rights is not a pro sex offender movement then I can guarantee you that the number of men incarcerated for sexual offences will continue to rise. Until men wake up to the fact that feminists have manipulated our legal system to define consenting acts as rape then in my opinion men will not have rights.

Thoughts anyone?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Men’s Rights As A Pro Sex Offender Movement

  1. tabithachurch says:

    i don’t know what to say to you but i’m trying to hear you out

  2. thedude says:

    The only safe course if for me in the 21st century West is to as much as possible keep well away from all women and society in general.

  3. thedude says:

    That was supposed to read “the only safe course for men” (groan).

  4. Opus says:

    You could no more persuade me to go near anyone under say the age of say twenty-one even if their life was in danger and I felt I might assist in its saving than to eat barbed-wire.

  5. Norman says:

    It’s difficult to get a measure of how many men have a substantial attraction to girls before the onset of puberty (i.e. under about 10) but we can try and get a feel. If the data in the reddit post below is to be believed, men’s sexual attraction generally peaks for girls about 14 and this must surely mean that men’s sexual attraction begins quite a few years before that. Exactly when is difficult to say but I think about 7 is a reasonable estimate. Helen of Troy and Snow White were deemed to have become the most attractive in the land at that age. After conquering a town, Mongol warriors would round up all the girls over the age of 7 and rape them. And I’m not ashamed to say that I’ve popped some boners at pics of child models that young I’ve seen on sites like 4chan.

    Data on male preferences:

    • thedude says:

      Um… no.

      • Norman says:

        Why? What’s wrong? If sexual attraction peaks for girls at 14 it must begin years before that.

        Don’t you agree?

      • Robert A. Lindsay says:

        Chart is fake, but one study showed that 26% of men tested”pedophilic” in the lab, that is, they were as attracted or more attracted to girls 2-12 than to females 13+. Another study found 21%. Apparently most have a strong attraction to mature females too, so I guess they blow off the girl attraction and focus on women. But .1-1% of men are primary of fixated pedophiles.

  6. thedude says:

    No. I’d say it STARTS at 14. 7? No. Just… no.

    • holocaust21 says:

      From the link I gave in the article above it does seem that it is relatively common for men to be attracted to children. Around 20% of men may well be clearly attracted to 7 or 8 year olds. It’s further proved by the fact that the age of consent in some parts of the world was actually set as low as 7…

      That said, there is still the other 80% of men who may have little to no attraction to little children. However, it is still surprisingly common and seems to make some evolutionary sense. If a man finds a little girl who is attractive (ignoring age) then it may make sense for him to go out with her and have to wait until she can get pregnant than to go with someone older who may overall be less attractive or for him to fail to find a suitable mate at all in a reasonable time frame. Thus in most men attraction gradually declines as age drops, but I do not think there is a hard puberty cutoff, like some may claim.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Interesting piece of research giving a more in-depth meta-analysis regarding age attraction:

      Seems to suggest 20% of men do indeed find those 13 or under more attractive than adults. Interestingly they manage to separate analysis of pre-pubescent and post-pubescent in the studies analysed. So, the study finds “true” paedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescents) to be around 3% whereas it is 16% for hebephilia (13 or under).

      So there’s a clear drop off when it comes to proper paedophilia. However, the comparison made is where sexual attraction is greater than or equal to adults. It is still entirely possible that many men find prepubescent children slightly attractive, just the overwhelming majority prefer older.

      • Robert A. Lindsay says:

        No they find them AS attractive or more attractive than adults. And it’s 21-26%. They almost all have a strong attraction to mature females so they blow off the kid attraction, but testing “pedophilic” in the lab is remarkably common. Actually 90% of men will react to girls under age 12, just not that much. And only 1% of men are fixated pedophiles with little to no attraction to adults, and these are the only ones who should be called pedophiles IMHO.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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