How sex abuse hysteria became the principle tool used to intimidate and control men.
by Clyde Verner
It became official in 1997, by Congressional Resolution. Men are animals. Left unsupervised for even a few moments, the
human male will try to mate with any animate object in the vicinity. Little
girls, boys, babies–even the dog isn’t safe when left alone with a man in the
We used to think that if we could just catch and lock up a few perverts, then we
would all be safe. A pervert is, by definition, someone who isn’t like the rest
of us. Now we know there aren’t any perverts–just men. And we men will do it
with whatever is available, anytime we get the chance.
Here is a section of proposed Joint Resolution 182 of the United States
Congress, intended to compensate for what the resolution’s proponents claim is
“gender bias” in the judicial system:
105th Congress, 1st Session H. Con. Res. 182
Whereas, as a result of this gender bias, many myths are that
women make false allegations of domestic violence or child abuse,
and most particularly of child sexual abuse, during divorce and
Whereas false accusations by women are in fact rare, occurring
no more often than do other false reports of crimes, such as
Bank robbery! What a wonderful comparison! Our family court system gives women an enormous incentive to lie, by rewarding those who do. To help compensate for gender bias in
the banking world, perhaps Congress should change the law so that any female
bank teller reporting an imagined bank robbery would be rewarded. To match the
rewards that an imaginative wife can claim, our lucky bank teller should not
only get the bank building and all of its contents, but a large share of all
future profits of the bank as well.
Of course, such an incentive could encourage normally law-abiding citizens to
make false reports. As long ago as November of 1991, even the divorce lawyers
who profit from the newfound false abuse industry admitted that this is how it
” …eighty percent of those polled said they had actually handled a case
where they believed there was false accusation of abuse, as in disputes over
custody of children, for instance.”[News Release, from The Dilenschneider
Group Inc., (representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers),
Three First National Place, 70 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602, 11/91.] –(Courtesy Father’s Manifesto, message fm71121)
Do this with reports of bank robbery, and soon the police wouldn’t bother coming
any more. Who would like this? Yes, congresspersons, you’ve got it! Bank
So what is the next paragraph in Resolution 182? Lo and behold:
Whereas the myth that women make false accusations is so
widely believed that many child protective service agents have
policies of not bothering to investigate such allegations when
made during the pendency of divorce or custody proceedings or
only superficially investigate such allegations;
Naturally the agents who work the flood of these cases every day have learned
from experience that it is a waste of time. As a result the real bank robbers
are slipping through.
The once respectable National Organization for Women is now assisting
these bank robbers. NOW actually encourages women to make false reports,
by actively working to defeat laws which prohibit false reporting! (For
more on this subject see Taliban Movement
Gains Strength in America.) This NOW policy not only looks
irresponsible and stupid, it turns the group into active enablers and
facilitators of this sort of “bank robbery.”
The fact is, a divorcing woman can think she has a lot to gain by making a false
abuse report. By not working to encourage the responsible use of these
incentives, NOW has put itself in a position where it can be blamed for
severely weakening the position of the women who really need the system the
most. When will NOW officially deny that it encourages women to make
false reports? And once the denial comes, how long will it be before NOW
takes the necessary action confirming it?
When will NOW demand of its women that they meet the standards of integrity that are already expected of men?
We know that there are incentives to exaggerate the amount of abuse. Naturally
this incentive drives exaggerated claims of the effects of abuse as well.
Suddenly we have a great demand for “victims” to elaborate endlessly
on what horrible beasts we men are. (For more on the disputed effects of abuse,
see John Knight’s The False Child Abuse Industry.)
Sometimes it seems as if those few women not busy being raped are busy acting
out rape stories for an audience. To help train this last group of would-be
victims, we have “therapists” who profit from producing victims who
only last week “recovered” the memory that they had been abused for
years. (See The Use of “Recovered” Memories Banned in Britain.)
Back to other perversions. Yes, we used to believe that we only had to worry
about perverts. So when an annual three million official reports of husbands
committing child abuse became the norm, we beastly men were certain that most
of it must be false accusations. After all, three million cases per year for
twenty years is 60 million, and by then we will have rounded up most of the
married men of prime abusing age in the country. And these are only the
reported cases–just the tip of the iceberg, as they say.
The gender-feminists groan that all this sexual wandering is just human nature.
If so, Congress would be making a big jump from the harmless joy of punishing
their favorite perversions to that of regulating human nature. The laws of
nature have a way of eluding the wishful laws of man, and the competition
present in nature is the basis of balance. Where one established competitor
fails, another takes advantage.
These extremists’ exaggerated fear of their sexual competitors is a constant
reminder that they doubt their own prowess. And rightly so, for such masculated
females. When I think of getting close to one of them, even my dog begins to
look more attractive in comparison. Yet only the combined prospect of
simultaneously defying both NOW and a Congressional resolution could
sufficiently brighten the otherwise scanty pleasures such a perverse roll in
the hay might offer.
Besides attempting to quash the competition, the resolution tries to reverse a
trend towards maintaining the joint custody of children after a divorce. In
their attempts to keep fathers out the custody picture, the sponsors of
Resolution 182 seem to argue that all of this sexual wandering is typical male
behavior. But which congresspersons truly believe that men are all going over
to the competition? Certainly not the beastly men among them.
It’s time the sponsors of Resolution 182 figured out that their exaggerated hype
undermines the natural protection children and house pets have from the mating
practices of beastly human males, a protection that no amount of policing could
These creatures have always been mostly left alone wherever there exists the
common knowledge that they don’t really make good sex partners.
From a beastly man’s point of view, they have much less to offer sexually than
their adult woman competitors. Unlike a more conventional mate, they produce no
progeny, nothing fits quite right, and I expect all that squirming and
complaining can be distracting as well. What is the wife like, if this is
View other articles by Clyde Verner.