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 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44284820/Prevalence%20-%20Trom%202.JPG ). 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.