Notice how the public is purposely hoodwinked by the phrase
'sexual assault and battery' into believing that this man has committed a crime
that is far more serious than the one that he allegedly committed.
The idea behind this is to demonise most horribly those men who have committed
even the most trivial of 'abuse' offences.
Furthermore, notice that if this man had actually been found guilty, his
criminal record would have said convicted of 'sexual assault and battery'.
For a kiss!
And, of course, he would probably have gone on the Sex Offenders Register.
In general, "assault and battery" to most people will convey the
notion of a continued and prolonged act of serious beating.
And some people wonder why I have such utter contempt for politicians and for
the so-called 'justice' system.
And please remember that virtually all the 'abuse' terminology is designed to
magnify enormously the crimes that it relates to.
Having a conviction for 'domestic violence' might mean nothing more than that
a man shouted at his partner. Having a conviction for 'rape' might mean nothing more than
an 18 year-old falling head over heels and having sex with an enthusiastic 15
year-old. Having a conviction for 'child abuse' might mean nothing more than that
a mother gave her 12 year-old son's backside a passing whack ...
... And, of course, bearing in mind that less extreme things tend to happen far
more often than do more extreme things, the 'extreme terminology' is
clearly a determined attempt to make the majority of 'abuse' crimes sound like the
minority of 'abuse' crimes.
This is nothing less than purposeful, willful, deceit.
So, a big thank you to all those activists (many of them from the USA, Canada
Australia) who have continually helped me to maintain two of my pieces about the
NSPCC on pages 2 and 3 of Google for well over a year now, and which, as a
result, have now each been read by well over 30,000 people since I
And, of course, a thank you to all those UK activists who have written
directly and complained about the NSPCC to various MPs and media outlets.
But, of course, there is still a mountain of work to be done because the
NSPCC is never going to stop demonising men, or indeed women and
No demonisation, no funding!
This organism cannot survive without whipping up hatred towards, and
instilling a fear of, men. As such, there is no way that polite complaints made
directly to the NSPCC will have any effect. The only thing that the NSPCC will
respond to is the threat of losing some of its own power - and wealth.
Furthermore, it is quite clear that the NSPCC does inflict serious damage on
to the nation's children, and its directors must be well aware of this given the
amount of correspondence concerning the matter that it must have received over
Anyway. We have now seen three Tory MPs denounce the NSPCC in some way during
the past week, and I
am hoping to see many more lofty folk joining them in the near future.
But now, despite all the good news above, I am going to have a good moan about
some men's activists who have been helping the NSPCC by generating their own abuse hysteria, and who,
quite clearly, do not understand the need to
look more closely at the bigger picture - and, perhaps, to appreciate more fully
the way in which those anti-male 'organisms' combine and collude with each other
in order to heap further injustices on men.
... The next step, of course, will be for feminists and women's groups to demand that all alleged
domestic violence perpetrators or those alleged to have committed
some kind of sex-assault against their partners also be placed on the register
and also forbidden from
working with children.
Think of the power that this would give to ALL women; not to
mention to all children and to government.
Remember: The proposed list will contain the names of alleged
offenders. So, it won't be long now before men who have been alleged
to have committed any crime of 'abuse' will be barred from being
a police officer, a teacher, a social worker, a nurse, a doctor, and goodness
July 2008: This has now happened, more or less, ...
John Pinnington, 59, was told that all potential future employers must be told about the accusations, even though they were never proved.
But many men's activists in the UK have actually colluded with this piece of
legislation by generating their own abuse hysteria - e.g. over female
In their attempt to upgrade the sentences for women accused of sexual
misconduct - often young female teachers who have simply succumbed to some kind
of overwhelming attraction to one of their mid-teen pupils - they have simply
given the green light for governments to institute highly intrusive vetting
procedures on millions of men and women - procedures that will be
used to damage the lives of thousands of men merely on the basis of allegations.
As a result of the recent fiasco over the recent discovery that some 80 alleged
paedophiles were found working in schools - which employ some 750,000 people -
government officials will have looked round to see what they could do to limit
the political damage. And they will have noticed that many groups - organisms -
concerned with 'abuse' - such as the feminists, the abuse industry, and, of
course, the government itself - would be very happy to see more men being significantly
disempowered on the grounds that this will protect children. And they will also
have noticed that many UK men's activists would also likely
support such draconian procedures. After all, they too have been complaining
loudly about paedophiles - albeit female ones.
In other words, these activists have scored an 'own goal'. And the
consequence now is that men are even more under threat if they get anywhere near
children. And, as I have said, it will not be long now before allegations
of domestic violence etc will be deemed sufficient to bar men from certain jobs.
And until such time that more men's activists look closely at the bigger
picture and understand the nature and power of those organisms that float around
the place, their activism is often going to make matters worse for men; not
Another example of this shortsightedness can be seen in the way that some UK
activists have been lobbying the NSPCC to try to get it to portray more often women
in a negative light. This will achieve precious little in the way of benefit to
men, because, in a nutshell, the more hysteria that is generated over matters
concerning 'abuse', the more will the negative fallout have to be borne by
And they will be affected by such hysteria far more adversely than are women.
Of course, I do understand why men's activists are always very keen to point
out that women are often just as bad as men when it comes to matters of 'abuse'.
But when they join the feminists and the abuse industry in making a fuss over
relatively trivial matters of 'abuse' - especially by exaggerating the likely
consequences of it - then, in effect, they are working very much against the
interests of men, and, indeed, against the interests of women.
For example, the recent activism by some UK activists has involved attempting
to increase the length of a jail sentence handed out to a young
woman teacher for what was a relatively trivial matter of sexual impropriety
with an enthusiastic mid-teen pupil. There was some automatic, knee-jerk
presumption by these activists that, firstly, the young woman was 'evil' in some
way - rather than simply besotted with one of her pupils - and that, secondly,
the boy 'victim' was going to be traumatised for life - which seems highly
unlikely. They never had a shred of evidence for either of these things. It was
just mindless hostility generated by the fact that if the offender had been a
man, then the sentence would undoubtedly have been much longer. The upshot of
this type of activism, however, is merely to encourage the government to adopt
policies which will make matters worse for all men.
Of course, all of us are keen to protect children from, say, predatory
paedophiles. But, surely, we are also very keen to protect women from, say,
serious domestic violence or from serious sex assaults. This is not
the issue. The issue here is that encouraging the creation of policies and
procedures whereby people - men and women - are punished far more severely than
they deserve, and whereby ALL men are put under suspicion and
treated as if they were guilty of something, is not the kind of activism that I
can particularly stomach from a group of activists who purport to be acting on
behalf of men.
They are not acting on behalf of men at all. They are playing right into the
very hands of those people who are their enemies.
This is such an important area of men's activism that I am going to drone on
about it for just a bit longer.
Imagine, for example, that a man is given a one year prison sentence for
slapping his wife once in the face. And imagine that a woman who did something
similar - or slightly worse - was given a one-week sentence. Now, of course,
such a situation would clearly be a demonstration of just how outrageous was the
treatment handed out to the man.
But would it be wise for men's activists to lobby their politicians to demand
that women who did such a thing should also receive a one-year sentence?
Surely not; because they would simply be aiding and abetting the rather foul
machinations of the abuse industry. And the result of successful
activism in this area - i.e. the woman gets one year - would, in practice, be highly detrimental to men and women, but, in practice, far more
detrimental to men.
As such, it is very important for activists not to play the same
hysteria-promoting game that the feminists and the abuse industry are forever
playing; because it is a game which only has one outcome.
All men will lose.
Finally, I must emphasise again that I am not
talking about genuinely serious 'abuse' - such as stabbing, murder, forced rape
etc - where women so often receive much lesser sentences compared to men for the
very same crimes. In many of these instances both men and women
deserve long sentences. But the problem is that many activists are making too
much of a fuss over 'consensual abuse' - not quite the right phrase - or 'abuse'
where any hurt is likely to be relatively trivial and, as a
consequence, they are colluding with others to create an over-reaction from
which all men - in some way - will be disadvantaged.
Remember: A kiss on the cheek can now be
called Sexual Assault and Battery.
I do love your webiste but am dissappointed that you do not take sexual abuse
I had to tell you. Thats all.
I presume that your are responding to my piece about the hysteria over
***********************alleged******************** female paedophiles. But there
is nothing in that piece to suggest that I do not take **serious** sexual abuse
My point in that piece was that just because someone - or the law - calls
something 'abuse' it does not mean that something serious has happened. As I
pointed out recently, in the UK, an unwanted kiss is officially called 'sexual
assault and battery'.
This is ludicrous. And it is the abuse industry's way of keeping up the
With regard to mid-teenage boys who have **enthusiastically** had
relationships with young female teachers, the notion that they will necessarily
be traumatised by this is hokum. If they are going to be traumatised by
anything, it is by any court proceedings that might ensue. Indeed, I would
imagine that most people would be traumatised if they felt responsible for the
imprisonment of someone whom they actually 'loved'.
Tell me. If a 15 year old boy has a consensual warm intimate relationship
with a 15 year old girl, will he necessarily be traumatised by it?
So, what age must the female be, exactly, for trauma to occur?
Would such a boy be traumatised if the female was 16? 17? 18? 19? - 23?
Yes. I am sure that some boys would be forever traumatised if things went
badly wrong, but I doubt that this is what occurs in 99+% of these instances.
And, most certainly, it is absolutely crazy to assume that every single boy
in this situation must, necessarily, be traumatised - which is what some
activists are doing.
I had my first 'full' experience at age 14. It took me 7 attempts (one per
night) across a whole week to keep a hard on long enough to do the honours. LOL!
But my parents were abroad and so I had the place to myself.
Was I traumatised? No - despite the fact that the female was 15 or 16; I
can't remember exactly. But I can tell you quite categorically that even if she
had been 25, I would not have been 'traumatised' by having had sex with her. In
fact, a more experienced partner might well have made the whole affair less
problematical - ***sexually*** speaking.
But, in its attempts to grow and become more powerful, our whole language
has been corrupted and debased by the abuse industry. People are being taught to
see all 23 year old teachers who have consensual affairs with their students as
being arch manipulators and evil. Well, of course, this might be the case. But
my point is that my belief is that this is **rarely** the case. And I think that
those who fuel the abuse hysteria by jumping straight away to the conclusion
that any form of intimacy between differently-aged people is the product of
wickedness, manipulation and deceit on behalf of the older person are doing
nothing but making matters worse for EVERYONE - on NUMEROUS fronts.
Indeed, if anything, it is, generally, mostly younger people who have more
influence on older people rather than the other way round - **emotionally** speaking.
Of course, there are 'predators', and these have to be stopped.
But, please, let us not ruin everyone's relationships by assuming that
everyone is a wicked predator and that, as a result, people who freely choose to
engage in intimate situations should have the legal system monitoring them
closely and, further, they they should be threatened with some kind of severe
punishment for every action that does not meet with the approval of some kind of
And - while on the subject of 'abuse experts' - MOST of them are
Most of them can barely understand Newton's Laws of Motion. And yet they
portray themselves as having the ability to figure out the emotional workings of
the most complex computers on the planet - our brains! And they also claim to be
able to unravel and understand the most complex of histories - our personal
histories - and, mostly, on the basis of one-sided, personal testimony!
Finally, there is no mechanism that I can think of which would cause a warm
positive consensual experience to traumatise any ordinary person - unless, that
is, something 'secondary' happens - such as a therapist successfully portraying the act as
intentionally abusive, or, perhaps, the discovery that one has been cheated in
some way, etc etc.
I'm sorry, but is Terri Hatcher being sexually abused as a child really "breaking news?" As a psychologist, I deal with people who have been sexually abused. Is it hard on them, difficult to deal with, devastating at times? Yes, it can be (or not), but is publicizing all of the victimhood really a good way to help those who have been sexually abused? And frankly, from Oprah to Ms. Hatcher to Angela Shelton, it seems like everyone owns up to some abuse at some point. I can't help but feel this play for victimhood is not a good way to promote healing for the sexually abused.
I remember once sitting in on a group session at a sex abuse clinic for women years ago. I observed the group leader getting the women to open up about their abuse, but frankly, no solutions were put forth. The women cried, moaned and described their abuse in excruciating detail, more info than I ever wanted. One woman could no longer talk and was mute (although doctors told her there was nothing physically wrong with her) because of the severity of her abuse. I observed a number of sessions but noted that no one ever seemed to be getting better--in fact, some seemed to be getting worse--and I decided then and there that the way sex abuse victims were handled and the emphasis on victimhood was not the answer. I later talked to patients who had gone to similar group therapies or been told by mental health professionals or others about how devastating their abuse must have been. Rarely did this seem to help.
I am not downplaying the emotional upheaval that can be caused by sexual abuse, but I disagree with the methods that our society uses to deal with sexual abuse. A person who has been abused often gets the message, if not directly, then indirectly, that they are "damaged goods" or that this one event in their life defines them in some way. Or that if they do not feel pain, vulnerability and damage from the experience, then they must be repressing something. My concern is how to help people overcome sexual abuse experiences and get better, not how to help them wallow in victimhood. If the mute patient in the group therapy session I described above is any example of how one should deal with sexual abuse, by offering victimhood as a lifestyle, then count me out. I would rather see people heal and move on.