Kissing

Kissing Abuse A postman who stopped his delivery bicycle and kissed a woman acquaintance in the street has been cleared of both sexual assault and battery.

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.

"Assault" -> abuse, assail, bash, blast, blitz, bushwhack, invade, lay into, rape, ruin, set upon, shoot down, slam, slap around, storm, strike, trash, violate, work over, zap

"Batter" -> bash, beat, break, bruise, clobber, cripple, crush, demolish, destroy, disable, disfigure, lacerate, mangle, mar, maul, mutilate, pelt, pommel, pound, pummel, punish, ruin, shatter, smash, thrash, wallop, wreck

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.

Huh!

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 ...

Nurse Dismissed For Smacking Son A senior nurse at a leading public school has been sacked after smacking her 10-year-old son at home.

... 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.

NSPCC Exposed Again By Tory MPs The NSPCC briefing is alarmist, sensationalist, misleading, empirically flawed, completely irresponsible and highly reprehensible.

So, a big thank you to all those activists (many of them from the USA, Canada and 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 wrote them. 

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 'parents'.

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 the years.

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.

Take a look at this, ... 

New Vetting Procedures The government announced a crackdown today on sex offenders in the workplace, including proposals to fine companies up to £5,000 if they hire an adult who has not been properly vetted to work with children.

... 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 what else.

----------------------------------------

July 2008: This has now happened, more or less, ...

A teacher who says he was falsely accused of sexually abusing pupils yesterday lost a legal battle to clear his name.

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 'paedophiles'. 

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 better.

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 men. 

ALL men.

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.

(In connection with this matter, I also recommend my pieces Michael Jackson's Victory.)

Dear Harry

I do love your webiste but am dissappointed that you do not take sexual abuse seriously.

I had to tell you. Thats all.

P

Dear P

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 seriously.

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 hysteria.

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?

No.

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.

Subterfuge!

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 'abuse expert'.

And - while on the subject of 'abuse experts'  - MOST of them are COMPLETELY BOGUS.

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.

Best wishes

Harry

Purloined from Dr Helen's Blog ... 

Is This Really Breaking News? 

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.