The War on Hugs: the me too movement and the criminalisation of male heterosexuality

Let’s jump on the bandwagon, women! Somebody asked you out on a date and you declined? That is sexual harassment. You might have flirted beforehand. You might even have liked being asked because it was flattering even though you declined. An accusation of sexual harassment can end the career of a male. Even looking at someone for a moment is harassment. It is preposterous to declare whole sections of the female form to be off limits from one’s gaze even if she is fully clad.

I yearn to burst in twain the galling fetters of feminism. Man is born free but everywhere he is under the feminist lash. Womankind is now largely deprived of the flattery, the generosity and the gentlemanliness that old-fashioned straight males once treated them too. It is a bland, monochrome and joyless world we are building. Cupid’s quiver is empty!

It is noteworthy that while male heterosexuality is under siege homosexuality is actively promoted. I have no beef with same sex relationships. I merely ask for equality. Can straights not have the same rights as gays?

Gay men can harass straights and no one cares. I have been subjected to this. I found it a trifle uncomfortable. I had to stand up for myself. But I would never consider telling the cops. Nor should other consequences flow such as civil action. If only more women had such hardihood.

A female can make advances on a male even if he has not evinced the slenderest desire for her. But we do not have a spate of males crying to heaven for vengeance about this. Perhaps I am not comparing like with like. In the last analysis a woman cannot rape a male.

Men – do not relax at the office party or even at the pub. Do not let your guard down. These are particularly dangerous occasions. One compliment and you are done for. A young swain in his naivete might even essay to plant a peck on a lady’s cheek. Woe betide him!

Nightclubs are minefields. We know that dancing is to some extent a mating to ritual. Provocative clothing and twerking are not remotely sexy. Women are permitted to be flirtatious but males are not. To think this indicates a desire for coquetry is dead wrong. Anything penile is penal!

We have entered a lamentably intolerant phase. Alarmism is in the air. Shrieking headlines predominate. This shrill atmosphere means that the mildest misdemeanour is conflated with the vilest crime. It is all a slippery slope. The public has been told that no incident no matter how trifling can be overlooked. Minnie Driver equated a man exposing himself to a woman with rape. It is just as bad she said. A man showing his penis to a woman who does not want to see it is a contemptible and shameful thing to do. But this pervert is not on a par with a rapist.

This is all how Stanley Cohen described things in ”Moral panics and folk devils”. Even as the incidence of harassment is declining the media and certain demagogues stoke fear. They thrive on fear and hatred. This creates a power structure for authoritarians and do gooders. Statistics are hugely inflated. The severity of wrongdoing is greatly overstated. Anyone who questions this pernicious craze is furiously denounced. People are scared into silence. Unprovable allegations are dredged up from decades ago. The most lurid and unlikely tales are believed without question. The dead can be dishonoured of anyone says that a man flirted.

Note how we are not allowed to ask perfectly reasonable questions about accusations. Anyone who expresses the mildest doubts about an allegation however unlikely is shouted down. The presumption of innocence is turned on its head.

Gloria Steinem is perhaps the prophetess of this movement. She long boasted of aborting her baby. She exposed the shocking fact that men are attracted to Playboy bunny girls. Some men touched these women without permission. How bad was that? Slightly naughty? Or ghastly? It rather depends where. Surely it was a non-story. Her co-evals have mostly gone to their reward. But la Steinem is still indefatigably advocating for the social emasculation of straights. Tens of millions of infants have been immolated her altar to oppression. Her gall and shamelessness in advancing the cause of infanticide is flabbergasting.

When a male is accused of rape or even of sexual harassment he is suspended form his job or political organisation. But this is not enough according to hardline feminists. He must be dismissed immediately! When the President of the Oxford Union was accused of rape some feminists demanded that other people pull out of debates at the Oxford Union. The Union comprises tens of thousands of members. If one of them is accused of a crime they are all adjudged guilty before the defendant’s trial has even begun! The allegation was later retracted. The complainant acknowledge that she had engaged in consensual intercourse with this boy. She should have been sent to prison for twenty years. Perjury and wrongful conviction

We are told that the present assault on liberty is needful since we must extirpate rape. Rape has been unlawful for as long as we have had laws. This is a heinous offence. No right-thinking person can want another to fall prey to this crime. Why on earth should we outlaw flirtation and prevent colleagues dating for this reason? It is as though as any male can rape any female we have to prevent consensual intercourse as much as possible.

We are witnessing the stealthy abolition of male heterosexuality. The straight male is under attack on many fronts. I get the distinct impression that many feminists would prefer that male heterosexuality did not exist.

The war on hugs is protean. It is about prohibiting office raillery on matters amorous. It involves forbidding colleagues from forming an intimate liaison. It also requires lecturers to be prevented from having any intimate relationship with their adult students. It is about unduly broadening the definition of rape to any act of intercourse where the female partook of spirituous liquored aforehand. Lads mags are restricted. Popular erotica is discouraged. In many universities it is banned.

Liberalism started in the 19^th century by reducing restrictions. In the 21^st century it introduces restrictions. The liberal left is addicted to banning things. It has invented tens of thousands of criminal offences. It is lugubrious to reflect that it has sometimes been abetted by the right. Occasionally the feminist agenda has even been actively advanced by supposedly right wing governments. The concertation of left wingers, liberals, feminists and their acolytes in the media and academe has made them a very potent force. They have incessantly bombarded people with feminist propaganda. They have seized control of the English language. Gendered nouns on their way out. Inanities such as waitperson have gained some traction.

These are dangerous and frightening times. Is it the end of flirting as we know it? Do we have to submit a legal letter to pay a compliment. If one feels limerence towards another how can one declare one’s sentiments?

Sexual harassment is not chimerical. What is it? It is repeated unwanted comments or touching. If something happens once it is almost never enough to constitute that. A wink, blowing a kiss or a wolf whistle is mere gallantry or perhaps boorishness. I have never wolf whistled in my life. In Nottingham these whistles are reported to the police. The chief constable wants to know about it. Catching murderers might have been thought more important. But I have clearly got my priorities the wrong way around. The chief constable knows which is the greater crime.

The germ of the anti-harassment movement was a good idea. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just as feminism was initially laudable. Females ought to be permitted to own property, to do whatever job they so choose, to vote and so forth. But it has metamorphosed. Good has turned to bad.

Feminism seeks inegalitarianism. It wishes to deny fathers access to children. It seeks to bankrupt men at divorce. It sanctifies abortion. It has anathematised male heterosexuality. It is a peerlessly pernicious creed quite beyond the pale of human tolerance. Is there no end to the wickedry it has wrought?

There have always been lechers. Men who sexually harass women are foolish and disagreeable. It is often accompanied by other disreputabilities such as alcohol abuse. These unpleasant sorts should be given short shrift. They ought to be forgiven if they mend their ways.

Foolish and sometimes ill-intentioned males will sometimes make women feel gauche or offended. This is regrettable. That is the price we pay for a free society. Many would prefer any unfree society.

The me too movement has gone into overdrive. It has extended the notion of harassment too far. It uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Sixpenny matters are not treated with severity. People try to go to law over trivialities. Whatever happened to de minimis non curat lex?

If a male asks a female on a date and she says no then that is not harassment. But if he asks her again and again then it is harassment. How many times does it need to be to constitute harassment? That is a moot point. We need a sense of proportion and to avoid jumping to conclusions.

Supposing you have taken a shine to a female colleague. Valentine’s Day is approaching. Do you dare send her a card? If you compose a paean to her serene radiance, her iridescent azure eyes, the tresses of her raven locks, the lilt of her tinkling voice or heaven forfend the curve of her heaving bosom and the tone of her gracile calves you will find yourself out of a job. What is a boy to do? Can you tell her that you only want her for her mind? Is romance dead?

 

People change their minds. Pertinacity can be alluring. Romantic films send mixed signals.

A man Expressing attraction to women is now called misogyny. That is utterly daft. It is the polar opposite of misogyny. No wonder people turn to online dating. But will even that be seen as harassment? Consent does not vitiate the evil nature of harassment so feminists will say. Even if a woman engaged on flirtation or consensual sexual activity some words of behaviour can still be harassment so the feminist Taleban say.

We are being oppressed by rampant feminist totalitarianism. This is a nefarious form of extremism. It would criminalise cheeky comments or wolf whistling.

We are told that erotic raillery is banned in the workplace. What a pity that we cannot have a giggle. Feminists are killjoys. No more badinage! What pleasures do we have left? You had better be punctilious is in adhering to the feminist gospel. One joke and it will have a career terminating effect.

Unwelcome sexual advances are harassment we are told.  Anyone who has ever made passes at someone has sometimes made an unwelcome one. How do we know of they are unwanted till we have made then? People try to pick up on clues. We send signals. Women talk obliquely. People misread signals. This is often due to wishful thinking. Men usually make the first physical move. People are sometimes unsure of their feelings. They do not know how they will react. Are we to ask permission for every action? Even if we do vocalise it these words may constitute harassment according to bigots. A boy has to muster up the courage to tell a woman of his feelings for her. She will admire him for having the guts to do so even if she declines his offer.

There are bad men who knowingly touch women against their will. This is disgraceful. A woman is surely entitled to give a lout a slap if he behaves in an ungentlemanly fashion.

Feminists are adamant that prostitution must be outlawed. These fools are exacerbating the very problem they claim to want to solve. Hookers form a sexual breakwater. Supposing a male is overpowered by lust. What is he to do? The solitary vice will not always suffice. The onanist will betake himself to a house of ill-fame. There he can satiate his natural appetites. A feminist will be outraged that a man has derived pleasure. That a woman has been paid for this will send the feminist into paroxysms of self-righteous fury. Put aside this moral spasm. No one has been harmed. Others may have been saved. They say an erection has no conscience. Isn’t it better for a man to copulate with a lady of the night than commit rape or paedophilia? Are they really on a par? Most men are not like this. But there are some males who lack self-command.

The feminist extremist – male and female – are taking away so much happiness. They are po face prudes. Many relationships come from people having the courage to take a risk – to make an advance. Sometimes these advances are ill judged and it is spurned. People must be allowed to try.

The epithet feminazi has often been used. It may appear to be a puerile pun. But is there genuine Nazism in the ranks of the third wave feminists? They have proclaimed implacable warfare on the unborn child. The grant no quarter to helpless babes. They would have done with men. Males are not needed as there are sperm banks and dildoes. The sperm banks have enough swimmers to produce a generation. The feminazi movement is totalitarian. It has gone a long way towards suborning schools, hospitals, universities, the media, the police, the armed forces, the courts, the politicians and in the United Kingdom even the royal family. There is not much left. The concatenation of feminazis successes has made them a force to be reckoned with. It will be devilishly difficult to roll back the changes that they have affected. Their cacoethes to control is terrifying.

Feminazis work themselves up into a tizzy of sanctimonious fury. They call consensual sex ‘violence’ because they do not like it. It exposes the central fallacy of their ideology. That is that most men are rapists and heterosexual relationships are generally abusive. Feminazis are worryingly convinced of their own rectitude. Their crusade brooks not the least dissent. They are hellbent on quashing any male self-assertiveness.

Another Big Lie at the heart of feminazism is the equation of misogyny with male heterosexuality. Most men are straight. Get over it! Yes, males usually find women physically desirable. This will come as news to you. Males generally prefer younger ones to older ones. This biological fact is regarded as scandalous be feminazis.

Feminazis have imposed their notion of sexual harassment on much of society. You have better observe this with scrupulosity. Otherwise it is dismissal, lawsuits and perhaps prison.

Feminazism certainly has ethical elasticity. It can sentence millions of babies to death without any compunction. In the next breath it considers kissing a woman’s hand the most abhorrent crime.

We have come to a pretty pass when a men’s dinner which has nubile waitresses in provocative clothing was the subject of questions in Parliament. Some British politicians attended this dinner. Feminists had an orgasm of ire over men deriving aesthetic pleasure from the female form. Some women who chose to work at the party disliked men looking at them. They also found some of the men’s remarks objectionable. Tough! Get another job. Swear at him. Do not call the police. Some called the police. Worse still the police interviewed the women. What was the crime hear? In fairness not charges were laid against anyone. What would the legal catch all have been? Political incorrectitude?

Feminists were in a tumult of distress at boys being boys. It is the height of preposterousness that Hooters has to tell waitresses that the men who go their will say cheeky things. Males are mostly aroused by ocular stimuli to a greater degree than females are. That would stun a feminist.

People sometimes overstep the mark and say crude things. What is the boundary of propriety? It is hard to say. Surely it is not a matter for the police. But if a customer says something vulgar there will be a flood of weeping.

There is an exaggerated manifestation of feeling around sexual harassment. If a male has said something lubricious to a female then she will probably overreact and be egged on by feminists.

There are straight male turncoats. These men take the side of the feminists. Some males are pussy whipped or will do anything for sex even if that is inimical to the interest of hetero males. These traitors are worthy only of the deepest disdain. But Judases are legion.

There are plenty of good straight women who oppose feminism or at least feminazism. Right thinking hetero women are not against their own sex. They are simply for a happy and collaborative relationship between the two sexes.

Nothing in this article should be taken to be against gay women or gay men. This article is not primarily about them.

If womankind is the fair sex what does that make us boys? The unfair sex?

Male overtures to women are often delivered with astonishing ineptitude. It is tricky to try to divine the signs that a woman is giving off. This is particularly so in a nightclub situation. The lights are crepuscular and alcohol has been liberally poured over the situation. Potation does little to hone emotional intelligence or tact.  The signs from a woman that betray her desire for a male are subtle and complex. In a nightclub when does a male know he has permission to touch her? She is not going to say it. Would that be being too easy? Plus the music is pumping at ear splitting volume. The low lights make pupils dilate. This is usually a sign of attraction. The male will likely misread the pupils. Supposing he touches her shoulder believing her to want this. Is that sexual assault? If she does not express disapprobation where can he touch next? Where after that? Is acquiescence consent? The criminal law a blunt instrument to deal with such vexatious matters. The situation is very confusing.

It is a sad day for romance and indeed lust. To indicate fond feelings for a female would cause perturbation amongst the feminist cohorts. How dare a male be hetero! But if a man is desirous of someone of the opposite sex what is a boy to do? He can try to read her signals. Observe her facial expression and judge the notes in her voice. Watch for wrist display or mouth play. Tilting the head back, engorgement of the lips, caressing the lip of cup and suchlike are said to be dead giveaways. This is not an exact science. No two women are the same. Not everyone expresses desire in the same fashion. None of the foregoing signs may be present. This is where one mans up and pops the question. Of course, as often as not the female does not have feeling for the male in question. He shall be turned down. It might be decorous or it might be indecorous. The male should endeavour to take the rejection with all the dignity he can muster.

Aphrodite is now adorned in thickest crepe of the deepest black. She wends her dolorous way to perdition. We are bereft of flirtation.

The War on Hugs has mainly been fought and lost already. The feminists dealt normality might strokes of war through indoctrination in schools, through legislation and through the misapplication of language. Their psychological operations were hugely successful. People start with the presuppositions that feminism is good, the patriarchy exists, rape is commonplace, flirtation is harassment and saucy photos are demeaning to women. That is half the battle. They have defined the parameters of the debate. When feminists control public discourse and their shibboleths are generally accepted we have an uphill struggle to convince people it ain’t necessarily so. How can we regain the centreground. It is hard to get into teaching or the media if you do not subscribe to feminist nostra. You might pay lipservice to them but inwardly dissent. As soon as you voice this dissent your career is over.

The counter-feminazi movement has yet to find an orotund voice. It is discordant. People rail against it from different angles. Some are religious, some are laddish, some are conservative and some are classical liberal. But few have the fortitude to join the movement. Even Bill Maher a liberal leftist has found the common decency to denounce the wilder reaches of feminazism. This was surpassingly brave of him.

It does not take much perspicacity to see that the situation is going to disimprove. I prognosticate that abortion laws will be loosened in more jurisdictions. Prostitution will be forbidden in more lands. More males will be imprisoned for rapes that never occurred.

Be ye men of valour! Breakest thou the chain! It would take indomitable courage to counterattack. Who shall lead the charge? I see no one riding to the rescue of straight males. Many damsels would like to be rescued to. They lament the dolorous declension of old style straight manhood. No more Valentines, no more roses, no more compliments, no more holding doors and no much sex. It is a dull old world these feminist bigots have forged for us. Were we foredoomed as soon as the abomination ‘Ms’ entered the language?

I want to fight back against feminist oppression. I want to stand up for freedom for males and females. But I do not know where to start. There are few allies in politics or the media. Is it a forlorn hope? The relinquishment of our liberty is probably too far gone. A free society may be as irrecoverable as Lyonesse. As we have probably already been vanquished would the struggle nought availeth? Perhaps I should just reluctantly accept the new dispensation. Is that stoicism or cowardice? Is emancipation too much to strive for?

We are led to believe that Western women live in darkness and woe. They are the richest, freest, safest, happiest and most infertile women on the planet. Feminists regard all those things are splenderous. Surely a Western female is in admirable plight. Her sisters in Saudi Arabia might not be in such an enviable predicament.

Are we now depriving ourselves of untold happiness.

Let the last entrenchment of liberty be our grave!