a voice for men excusing abuse FemRAs misandry misogyny MRA oppressed white men pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles pig ignorance rape culture sexual abuse sexual assault sexualization statutory rape apologists victim blaming

Female MRA argues that the real abusers in the BBC pedo scandals were the underage girls

Jimmy Saville: The real victim? (Uh, no.)
Jimmy Savile: The real victim? (Uh, no.)

British barrister Barbara Hewson caused a bit of a stir last week when she called for the age of consent in Britain to be lowered to 13 so as to end the alleged “persecution of old men” like those arrested in the wake of the recent Jimmy Savile scandal, which revealed a widespread culture of sexual exploitation of underage girls (and some boys) at the BBC in the 1970s.

Now one female Men’s Rights Activist connected to hate site A Voice for Men has done Hewson one better, arguing that the real culprits in these scandals weren’t the predatory adult men but the girls they victimized.

Janet Bloomfield, a fairly regular contributor to terrorist-manifesto-posting AVFM who is better known as JudgyBitch, writes on her blog that:

[B]asically, the girls were groupies. They wanted all the benefits of hanging out with a big star and they understood it came with a price and they paid it, perhaps reluctantly, but with full knowledge that the trips to London and the fags and the sweet weren’t free. …

And now they are claiming the MEN abused THEM? Looks to me like it was the other way around.

Yes, Bloomfield apparently feels that these poor little rich men were robbed of cigarettes and candy and trips to London by predatory teenage girls. She continues:

It’s a story as old as bloody time. Young women with nothing to offer but their youth and sexuality chase after powerful men in exchange for favors. If we are going to arrest every powerful man who has ever availed himself of willing women, we are gonna need to build a whole lot of jails.

Uh, Judgy, in case you missed the point of the whole debate here, we’re not talking about women. We’re talking about girls. In the case of  BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall, one of the victims that he has admitted to assaulting was nine years old at the time. Nine. Savile’s youngest alleged victim was an eight-year-old boy, and dozens of his alleged assaults were upon children in hospitals.

In the end, Bloomfield kind of, sort of, admits that the men may have behaved badly in these cases. But she still wants them to face zero legal repercussions.

Powerful men always have and always will delight in young women hunting them. Young women always have and always will hunt for powerful men. Both sides are equally culpable. Both sides are engaging in abuse. Both sides are behaving shamefully. Both side are being idiots.

But only one side is being held criminally responsible? Bullshit. If the girls are not going to be strung up on charges of solicitation and prostitution, and I absolutely do NOT think they should be, then fairness and equality under the law dictates the men get a pass, too.

Again, you may notice, Bloomfield cannot seem to decide whether or not these girls are in fact girls or “young women,” and in the two consecutive paragraphs right above you’ll notice she slides effortlessly between the two. Perhaps her desire to tag these girls “women” is an admission that, at least on some unconscious level, she knows what she’s arguing is beyond the moral pale.

Elsewhere in her post, she puts up pictures of underage girls whom she seems to think would be impossible to distinguish from adults. Here’s one, of a twelve-year-old model. (She also includes a creepily sexualized picture of the same model at age ten.)


Anyone unable to tell that this is a picture of a child, not an adult, shouldn’t be having sex with anyone.

And anyone as morally deficient as JudgyBitch shouldn’t be judging anyone.

387 replies on “Female MRA argues that the real abusers in the BBC pedo scandals were the underage girls”

RE: those model photos, the kids in those pictures are (like adult models) usually covered in makeup and airbrushed or photoshopped to hell and back. Real 13 year olds don’t look like that.

(It doesn’t help that most of the supposedly adult-looking photos are still easily distinguishable as children at a glance)

What’s extra creepy is that JudgyBitch has children, so you’d think she’d know what kids look like.

(This is if we were to pretend that her argument that the men couldn’t be expected to know they were molesting kids is anything other than total bullshit, which we’re not going to do, right?)

Ugh, Jimmy Savile. The Sixth Doctor and Tegan were right to react with horror when Savile invaded the TARDIS in a weird little Doctor Who skit Savile hosted on his program Jim’ll Fix It (which was all about him granting a wish to a child, which certainly allowed him access to more children).

What really angers me with this Bloomfield piece is how she tries to claim both sides are at fault in their own ways. No, enough of trying to find a balanced viewpoint on these moments; these were rich and influential men who took advantage of children.

Most of JB’s posts read as if they are almost a parody with the twisted and backwards ass logic. I often find myself reading and thinking, “Is this for real?” Blaming children for abusing grown ass men. Yeah, that’s a healthy mentality right there.

Well she is right, men are obviously too stupid, horny, and greedy for little girl’s bodies, since they are programmed by evolution to go for the most fertile and best child bearing girls, so you can’t blame the men of course!
Anyone who disagrees with this is unfairly painting men as lustful animals that go after children, MISANDRY!

Take a close look, MRAs: this is the garden path you walk down when you become obsessed with your bogus notions of equality and your backward analyses that cast sexualization and victimhood as positions of power. Now that you’re literally defending pedophiles (he said as though they didn’t do that plenty already), how much deeper can you dig, and can you ever reach the surface again?

I really don’t understand the resentment behind “why can’t men anonymously fuck anyone in any dark bar anywhere?”. I don’t—even if the girls were unrecognizable as children (which is clearly not the case), why isn’t it a a fair burden that men should make sure that they are not having intercourse with girls? HOW are they making it a civil rights issue that men should be able to anonymously fuck anyone in any dark bar anywhere.

Are we giving free advice? Advocating child abuse is a really bad way to win political support, MRAs. Even people who are as shitty as you are and therefore not actually offended by it aren’t going to want to be publicly associated with it.

If JB has daughters, she’s even more reprehensible. Is she going to think they’re whores and it’s their fault if they’re ever abused?

I’d rather be raised by wolves than have a mother like her.

Oh yes, let’s make the age of consent 13. It’s not as though anyone ever did anything stupid or irresponsible at THAT age. Why, you’re practically on the same mental/emotional/physical level as a 25 yr old, right? Right?

Yeah. I don’t buy it either.

What bothers me about the suggestion about lowering the age of consent is that she’s so obviously basing her ideas about what that age should be on the age at which she thinks a reasonable man might potentially be attracted to a girl, rather than on any idea of what might be best for the girl in question. I’ve seen this before from misogynists and it always creeps me out.

“Oh yes, let’s make the age of consent 13. It’s not as though anyone ever did anything stupid or irresponsible at THAT age. Why, you’re practically on the same mental/emotional/physical level as a 25 yr old, right? Right?”

Well I was dating the same abusive asshole…no wait, I was 19 the second time around, never mind.

Middle school! Fucking middle school kids! I don’t even…*hulk rage*

And here’s another sample to refer to when any MRA squeals that they’re not abuse and pedophilia advocates. NB not just apologists – advocates. It’s gone way past any attempts to minimise or dismiss pedophilia; this is outright promotion of child abuse.

Careful how you refer to it though, we’ve got Joe in the other thread assuming that a joke I made about Meller means that I was attributing Meller’s statements to him. Never underestimate how poor these people’s reading comprehension is. So if you say “an MRA said” they’ll go “I never said that!”.

Or demand we renounce TERFs constantly because all feminists are the same if all MRAs are and we make them renounce shit other MRAs say so why don’t we renounce TERFs…said in response to how are we supposed to distance ourselves from them beyond saying that they aren’t welcome…

Joe is confusing.

I had a guy try to grab me off the street when I was 13. And when I made it obvious that I wasn’t interested, and fully prepared to clock him with my flute case, he decided to jerk off in front of me. But that was totally my fault, for being female. And having breasts. I must have led him on, walking out of my junior high school, being all female. Yep, all my fault. That’s why he confessed as soon as the cops showed up, and pled guilty.

If anyone truly believes that Joe gives an honest fuck about the transphobia of radfems, I’ve got some swampland I’ll sell you cheap.

“So if you say “an MRA said” they’ll go “I never said that!”

And they call us a hivemind! 😛

hellkell, is it in the Everglades? I can think of a use for those alligators.

I was molested by a stranger at 8. Was it my womanly looks that made him do it?*

*I looked like a goddamn 8 year old.

Seriously, I just can’t get over how obvious it is that the needs of the children aren’t being considered at all in this scenario. All the idiot lawyer and the even more idiotic FEMRA are worried about is whether the child who’s being molested looks old enough for there to be plausible deniability that the man who wants to molest her isn’t a pedophile. They literally don’t think that the law should take the best interests of the child into account at all.

Hi, Pell. The Statute of Limitations doesn’t apply in the UK, it being a different country and all.

Hellkell, she absolutely would assume her daughters were sluts at age 13 if a powerful man molested them (She seems to think that the “power” is important. So – Castro in Cinncinati – totally a pedophile. Savile – totally not! Because Savile had MONEY!)

Indeed I am chastened by that stinging retort! American laws now apply in the UK, because trolly wants them to.

Holy shit, I had the exact same experience at 13, this old perv just grabbed me in a park! Except that I hit him with a clarinet case. In MRA world, that was probably women’s violence against men.

Right, wanting to keep children safe is a ‘wacky feminist 2013’ concept. Is this a totally new idea for this year? If not, when were these crazy ideas brought about? I’m thinking before 1990, at least in Michigan, because attempting to kidnap a kid and indecent exposure were both crimes when they happened to me.

Peter, baby, if you want to call feminists “wacky” it helps to not reinforce their points in every way possible by being the most disgusting human being you possibly can be.

Definitely. I mean, can you imagine the logistics of it? Most prison floors are made out of hard rock, digging a grave there to move the coffin to is going to be a lot of work. I guess they’ll save on guard man hours, though.

Maude: This guy tried to lure me into his car – he was a persistent ass, too. Tried three times, then pulled his willy out. I still shudder to think of what he would have done, and have panic attacks when there are stories about this sort of thing on the local news. A lifetime of worry for a transient wank, what a bargain.

So basically her argument is that adult men’s ability to act morally and responsibly is roughly equal to that of a 13 year old girl, and this should be acknowledged and reflected in the legal system.

Well no 13 year old in the world is allowed to be emancipated specifically because of their inability to act rationally and responsibly. They are all subject to the guardianship of responsible legal adults. Now that we are legally establishing that men are the moral and rational equivalent of pubescent children and cannot be expected to have any more accountability than they do, which women should the government appoint as their legal guardians? Their mothers, sisters, or nearest adult female relative? And what should their curfew be? How much TV and video game time should they be allowed per day? Should spanking them be legal if they act up?

Bullshit, PeterVanPell. Those pics caused quite a stir.

How is Uncle Monty, Pell?

PV: Lots and lots of people did more than raise eyebrows at many of the pictures taken of Shields when she was young. Those are particularly disgusting – sexualizing a young person like that is horrible and the photographer should have been prosecuted.

Bravo ashley. Bravo.

It stuns me that whatever argument misogynists use (Women like sex more! Men like sex more! Women cannot control themselves! Men cannot control themselves!) they always use it to argue for men being on top.

I read JudgeyBitch’s thing. This is the closest I’ve ever gotten to being physically ill after reading something.

It wasn’t just the huge list of sexualized photos (photoshopped, of course) of 12-13 year olds as part of some attempt to demonstrate just how hard it is to tell how old a girl is…

It wasn’t just her huge discourse on how the girls were totally culpable for being offered candy and cigarettes by adult figures (for which a suitable payment is apparently rape… for fucks sake)…

It wasn’t just the godawful long list of studies on when exactly young girls of different racial and socio-economic backgrounds first start having sex (I don’t know, maybe her argument is “it happens, so it must be a good thing”) that attempts to normalize sex with minors…

It honestly wan’t even her equating of “young women” (in their 20s) marrying older men for the money (and for fucks sake, this line: “It’s a story as old as bloody time. Young women with nothing to offer but their youth and sexuality chase after powerful men in exchange for favors.” The context… gag)…

The huge fucking kicker was this.

Karin claimed that when she recoiled from Starr’s alleged attempt to grab her breast and buttocks, he humiliated her by shouting out in front of the guests that he wasn’t interested in touching her because she was flat-chested.

I’m sorry. WHAT?!?

He tried to grab her ass and then called her a “titless wonder”? That’s the “abuse”? Are you fucking kidding me?

Oh wait. There’s more.

On one occasion, Karin claims, Savile persuaded her to perform a sex act on him in his Rolls-Royce on the promise of seeing one of his shows.

So there was more than one occasion then?

‘We’d think: “Jimmy’s here, we might get to go out.” If he came in his Rolls-Royce, he could get several girls in there and he would take us to the park, to a restaurant or London.’ There was, as the girls found out, a price to be paid for such generosity.

‘He wasn’t interested in us as people, he was only interested in one thing. We’d say: “He’s a dirty old man, a pervert,” but we’d laugh about it. We didn’t care because we were going to get sweets and fags and be taken to London to be on his show.’

‘We’d sit at the tables, smoking, thinking: “Poor cow, I wonder what she has to do,” and then we’d go: “Never mind, another trip to London.” ’

[image of two girls (groupies, I guess) huddled around a guy posed for a picture]

So basically, the girls were groupies. They wanted all the benefits of hanging out with a big star and they understood it came with a price and they paid it, perhaps reluctantly, but with full knowledge that the trips to London and the fags and the sweet weren’t free.

What in the fuckity fuck fucking fuck. How can she not see the blatant exploitation and abuse of fucking 12-13 year olds! It’s freaking right there, and she scoffs at it! Gah!

Both sides are equally culpable. Both sides are engaging in abuse. Both sides are behaving shamefully.

What the fuck is wrong with these people???

As for Garry Gross, he didn’t share the spotlight created by the controversy. His name was mentioned sporadically as the Brooke Shields controversy raged on, as when the famed appropriationist Richard Prince, who photographs other people’s photographs and exhibits them, dug this hoary old chestnut up again in 2007. “The photo has been infamous from the day I took it and I intended it to be…. she was supposed to look like a sexy woman,” Gross admitted to the Daily Telegraph then. But apart from occasional interview, Gross remained in semi-retirement. He was shunned by the society and rejected by galleries which were hesitant to court controversy by staging Gross exhibits. Never returning to celebrity photography, Garry Gross worked and died as a humble dog photographer and trainer. He is 73.

No one raised a brow. Reading comprehension, look into it.

Living in a normal world. Savile’s youngest victim was 8.


Ugh, just, no, none of this. I mean, leaving aside all her disgusting stuff about how the sex was really a transaction, or some form of prostitution or whatever, she doesn’t even seem to understand how a lot of this abuse worked.

Saville exploited his fame to get to kids in hospitals, and then exploited his fame to cover up his actions. He, and many of the other implicated celebrities, groomed children. Do you appreciate what grooming is Bloomfield? If you want to talk with any authority on child abuse, you need to understand what it is and see how it relates to this.

But even the sex that was a “transaction”, it wasn’t the children going, “Oh man, I can get free stuff”, it’s people like Saville going, “Hey, y’know, I could make you a star/let you see a famous person you like/whatever if you do this for me” which is not a transaction, it’s exploitation of kids who don’t know any better and who put implicit trust in the celebrities society seems to trust.

When these pics were taken and we were living in a normal world no one even gave them a 2nd look or raised an eyebrow.

Or can you judge someone who lived in normal times by wacky feminist 2013 standards

So your “normal world” is a world in which adults are having sex with children. Got it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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