Soraya Chemaly, Al Jazeera, SLPC facing tough questions over association with David Futrelle, child abuse apologist

Al Jazeera, and in particular its contributer Soraya Chemaly, as well as the SLPC, were facing tough questions today as to why they are associating with and giving credence to a man who, amongst many other disturbing things attacked the police as morons for removing a film depicting the horrific non-stop sexual abuse of naked children from a gay sex shop.

David Futrelle remains a trusted and well-cited ‘authority’ for Soraya Chemaly and the SLPC in their apparent crusade to have criminalized as ‘hate speech’ the very suggestion that men and boys might have certain human rights. Futrelle has now appeared twice on Al Jazeera as a supposed ‘expert’ on the question as to whether boys and men should enjoy basic rights.

David Futrelle and his cult like followers believe that naked 14 year old boys ‘acting’ out the perverted sexual fantasies of a paedophile child abusing film director, including forced shit eating, continuous anal rape, mutiliation, torture, and murder, can be ‘classic’, and should be openly sold in gay sex shops. In fact, he brazenly joked that the store owners should only be punished (fined) for making the mistake of renting the vile material to police who would be unable to ‘appreciate’ it.

David Futrelle also once argued that the innocence of victims of abuse is ‘exaggerated’ and claimed that such victims need to take ‘more responsibility’ for attracting their abuse.

David Futrelle has also been linked to a radical feminist hate group that believes that boys should be murdered in order to wipe out the male population. Many of his followers appear to share an obsession with torture and murder, even claiming the notorious psychopath the Marquis de Sade as a philosophical and moral inspiration, and many openly proclaim their fetish for images of idealized pre-pubescent girls. Disturbingly, at least one or two appear to be male paedophiles who are exploiting a claim of being ‘transgender’ feminists in order to avoid detection.

David Futrelle judged a film graphicly portraying the rape, disembowelment, and murder of naked 14 and 15 year old boys as ‘not exactly family entertainment’. When a radical feminist claimed that men and boys who write computer viruses should be castrated, he judged the statement as only appearing to ‘seem a little excessive’.

Al Jazeera is owned by Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer bin Mohammed Al-Thani, and was created (and still effectively owned) by the autocratic ruling family that runs Qatar. Qatar is rated as having one of the worst human rights records in the world. Homosexuals face 5 years in prison there.

The SLPC has charitable status and is a multi-million pound industry that relies on placing the label of ‘hate group’ on any number of political groups whose ideas deviate from what is currently mainstream, particularly of course, the ‘progressive left’ viewpoint.

Soraya Chemaly is a hardcore feminist who appears to blame men for every ill in the world. The following article of hers is a good example of her blinkered and misandristic world view :

Steve Moxon – The ridiculous Savile hysteria continues unabated, still on no evidence

Nothing in the ‘report’ published today throws any light whatsoever but merely further stokes the witch-hunt against a deceased DJ and charity fund-raiser.

What the report authors identified were merely opportunities for potential abuse, and no evidence of any kind other than the mere allegations of behaviour, most of which would be fully expected to have been subsequently re-defined as abusive – ‘inappropriate touching’ is all down to interpretation. The three rape allegations are no less merely allegation; and, furthermore, the incidence here is a surprisingly low one given what would be anticipated from what is known about the widespread occurrence of false allegation — conservatively 35% of all formal reports to police, on Home Office figures, and likely over (if not well over) 50% based on what police rape investigators state in surveys; and for often very trivial reasons ( see Prof Soothill’s research and that of Dr McDowell).

Nothing in this pattern of reporting would be unexpected after such a very high-profile police-cum-media ‘trawl’.

By far the more likely truth about Jimmy Savile is simply that he was a very high-profile, famous male individual whose job was to excite pop fans, and naturally this resulted in girls either throwing themselves at him or being fully open to sexual encounters. Given the wholesale lying by girls to get round the age-16 age bar re the Top of the Pops studio, then Savile is very likely to have had sex with a number of girls slightly under-age; but this would be fully expected re anyone in his position at the time, no matter how careful he had been to try to establish a girl’s age. In any case, this was a technical legal infringement only, in that all of the girls were post-pubertal – so however misrepresented, it was not ‘paedophilia’. With the high incidence of false allegation re sexual assault, then the outlier of the one pre-pubertal (nine-year-old) girl amongst the hundreds coming forward is the ‘exception proving the rule’ here.

The witch-hunt against Savile actually is not as lurid as the idiotic ‘satantic ritual abuse’ nonsense that the media, police and social workers swallowed hook line and sinker two decades ago; though now we have with Savile multiple allegations from supposed male victims – when we know that Savile had absolutely zero sexual interest in males – and that he supposedly indulged in necrophilia at Broadmoor. This last is all too predictable a ludicrous development from the way that similar sex witch-hunts have progressed in the past.

The authorities have made complete numpties of themselves in stoking the Savile debacle. It remains of course a possibility that Savile had an abusive side, but there is still no evidence of this, and the circumstantial indications are that he was simply a lucky bloke who capitalised on that luck, and that rather than causing any harm and distress added to the gaiety of the nation and put some sparkle into the lives of ordinary and less-than-ordinary individuals, and, not least, raised huge sums for worthy charities. In time, this hysteria will go the way of the hideously stupid ‘satantic ritual abuse’ cases, every single one of which turned out to be 100% perverse imagination.

If A Voice for Men Cares About Boys, Then Campaign to Have ‘Salo, 120 Days of Sodom’ Banned

The Men’s Human Rights Movement likes to make clear that we defend the rights of not only men, but boys too. What better way to illustrate this than to campaign for the banning of a disgusting ‘art’ film that contains little else but the horrific sexual torture and abuse of naked underage boys, and which is sold openly on Amazon, and even, apparently, on Netflix? One of the 15 year old boys abused in the film later killed himself through a drug overdose. Dean Esmay and TyphonBlue believe that 17 year old boys ejaculating inside the vaginas of older women are being ‘raped’. What about a film that depicts real naked 14 and 15 year old boys being anally raped, their nippled burned off, forced to eat their abuser’s shit, then disembowelled and their eyes gouged out?

Oh, and you might like to note in passing too, that the man who is trying to criminalize the very idea of men and boys having human rights once attacked the police for removing the film from a gay sex shop.

Some Amazon reviews have been added to my original article (scroll down to view)

Its disgusting. Watching people go through this, it seemed real to me, like watching a documentary of children being tortured. I think people who get off watching sickening abuse call this art as an excuse to watch it, when really they just get off watching torture porn. there is something wrong with this world. children being tortured and raped is not art. there is no reason for this movie to exist it should be illegal. sickening, horrifying, will haunt you for the rest of your life.

All biases aside, this film is nothing more than 117 minutes of continuous torture and sexual perversion directed at young people. Any socially responsible director can get his point across without feeling the need to wallow in this filth with child actors being violated in nearly every way possible . I have no doubt that Passolini either was getting his jollies out of the action being performed in front of his camera or was suffering great mental illness in order to allow his cast to be degraded in this way. It really is no wonder he was murdered shortly after completion of this film….As another reviewer has previously said this is an evil film and leaves an incredibly bad taste in ones mouth particularly when one realises they have partaken in this viewing experience willingly and contributed to the films revenue.

When David Futrelle Claimed that Female Abuse Victims Should Take Responsibility for their Abuse

In 1996 David Futrelle wrote an article entitled ‘Abuse Excuses‘ for the liberal publication ‘In These Times’. The article is a review of a book by Sharon Lamb, entitled ‘The Trouble with Blame‘. The theme of both the book and Futrelle’s glowing review appears to be that female abuse victims are as much to blame as their abusers, and need to take more responsiblity for their abuse.

He begins by crassly lumping together child sex abuse victims with ‘victims’ of alien abduction :

Daytime talk shows offer a daily parade of victims – ranging from victims of sexual abuse (and alleged abuse) to those who have been abducted and tortured by aliens.

Futrelle then goes on to state that our thinking on victims and abusers is ‘crude’. This is because we ‘idealize’ abuse victims, and yet ‘demonize’ the men who have abused them.

He then makes the astonishing claim that there are ALWAYS extenuating circumstances for men who sexually abuse women and children. I’m not sure even ANY MRA has ever said something as crass or ridiculous as that, and if any did, Fraudtrelle would be making a song and dance about it for weeks (or, actually, decades).

But in cases of sexual abuse, perpetrators are all-too-real people – usually men, and often enough relatives of the abused – who have stories of their own. Once you put a face on the abuser, it is harder to blindly condemn him. Nothing excuses the abuse, of course, but there are always extenuating circumstances : poverty, stress, and, all too often, a history of abuse as a child.


But worse is to come. Futrelle has accused me of ‘making stuff up about him’ despite his articles from the 90’s still being online for everyone to see. I’ll quote the following extended passage directly and you can judge for yourself. How would David Futrelle, in his present ‘Manboobz Meetup’ incarnation, interpret the following if it had came from the pen of an MRA, rather than the 1990’s version of himself :

What makes the issue so maddeningly complex, Lamb suggests, is that some of the victim’s self-blame is not entirely misguided. No woman deserves abuse, and no woman should blame herself for the behaviour of another. But Lamb notes, an abused woman is probably right to ask herself, ‘What is it about me that makes men do this to me?‘ Answering such a question may well enable her to keep from returning to her abuser – to overcome what some have called an “addiction to trauma”.

And it is as important for victims to take responsibility for their lives as it is for victimizers to accept responsibility for their actions. Responsibility, Lamb points out, is not a zero-sum game, by insisting that victims take more responsibility for their lives, we are not thereby absolving abusers of their responsibilities.

In short, Lamb suggest that we apply the same standards to both abusers and abused, neither sanctifying the victim nor demonizing the abuser, but treating both as human beings who can and should take responsibility for their lives – and who will benefit from doing so. As Lamb persuasively argues, “if there is an excuse that we won’t allow a perpertrator to make in his attempt to disclaim responsibility for his actions, then we surely can’t allow a victim to use the same excuse to disclaim responsibility for her actions.”

David Futrelle then appears to approve of Lamb’s view that abuse victims are rarely, if ever, entirely innocent.

Indeed, a more realistic conception of victimhood will do real victims more good than one that exaggerates their “innocence”. By urging victims not to blame themselves, Lamb writes, the public “creates a category of victimhood that requires blamelessness, leaving real victims with a private sense of guilt that they dare not talk about and that may prevent them from carrying on the task of living.”

However, to be fair to David, he does make one criticism of Lamb’s controversial thesis. This will be of interest to his feminist followers, as well the men’s rights movement he is now trying to criminalize for simply discussing the very idea that men may sometimes be discriminated against. He claims that Lamb is unfair to ignore male victims of abuse and to stereotype abusers as male.

And Lamb’s vision of gender inequality is, to say the least, simplistic. In Lamb’s view of the world, the archetypal perpetrator is male and the archetypal victim, female; indeed, a “note on terminology” at the beginning of the book explains that Lamb has “used the male pronoun for perpetrators and the female pronoun for victims.”

*I recently revealed that in another ‘In These Times’ article from the 1990’s, David Futrelle not only defended the renting out in a gay sex shop of a notorious film depicting the rape, mutiliation, forced scat, and murder of naked 14 year old boys and girls (one of whom later killed himself), but attacked the police as morons for carrying out a raid on the shop.

In another article from the same period, he appears to criticise any concern for child welfare at a political level, mocking Hilary Clinton for no apparent reason other than the fact that she worked for a children’s charity, and more disturbingly, appearing also to mock Barbara Bush for helping babies with AIDS – the “innocent victims” (Futrelle’s quote marks) of the disease.

Some Rotten Tomatoes Reviews for David Futrelle’s Alleged ‘Classic’ 120 Days of Sodom

David Futrelle has responded with outrage at my revelation that he once joked that the only mistake gay sex shop owners made in the distribution of a child torture porn movie, oh sorry, ‘great work of art’, from a Cinncinati gay sex shop oh sorry ‘gay and lesbian book store’, along with all the other gay pornors, was in renting it out to philistine undercover police.

One of his readers asked why ‘I don’t go after the reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes?’.

Well, I’m not sure what that means, given that somehow this child pornographic work of absolute filth is considered legal in the USA (mainly due to the intellectual pederast community claiming it is a work of art..oh..and the Chicago Film Critics Association), and that many of the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes call it out for the exploitative filth that it is, and that none of the reviewers there to my knowledge railed against the police to be arrested for removing the film from a gay sex shop. As far as I’m aware, none of them are inciting violence and intimidation against an old man for a comment made half-a-century ago either. But, anyway, here’s a selection of reviews of the film from Rotten Tomatos so you can judge for yourself. Bear in mind that the film’s cast of victims consisted entirely of naked boys and girls aged 14-18 who were not professional actors and who were chosen by the peadophile oh sorry ephebophile oh sorry homosexual artistic genius director for their young looks (with most of the apparent focus of the film, for some reason, being on the sadistic torture of the naked underage boys).

It’s very hard to sit through and offers no insights whatsoever into power, politics, history or sexuality. Nasty stuff.

Grim and pointless in equal measure.

Intended to be read as a caustic commentary on the evils of Fascism, Salo is marred by the uneasy perception that Pasolini (rather like purveyors of modern Torture Porn) is simply getting off on the abuse he visualizes with such delight.

A perfect example of the kind of material that, theoretically, anyway, can be acceptable on paper but becomes so repugnant when visualized on the screen that it further dehumanizes the human spirit, which is supposed to be the artist’s concern.

Laura Agustin on Somaly Mam, the Cambodian Sex Trafficking Activist Exposed as a Fraud

(excerpt) :

A Cambodian activist against sex slavery, Somaly Mam, recently resigned from her foundation after an outside investigation confirmed she had lied to attract donors and supporters. The revelations of Mam’s fraudulence are old news, however — Simon Marks’s reports have been appearing in the Cambodian Daily since 2012, and many other debunkings and doubts circulated much earlier among institutions, researchers, and activists trying to reverse unfounded sensationalism about sex trafficking.

Newsweek published some of Marks’s work on May 21, provoking outrage in the New York media establishment — less towards Mam than one of her greatest fans, self-styled slave rescuer Nicholas Kristof. He is accused of hoodwinking liberal-identifying readers and letting down the cause of journalism. Both accusations miss the point.

Thanks very much to Jeff Lewis for providing the link and for pointing out the very true fact that this scandal did somehow slip under my radar. You can visit Jeff’s blog at :

Another important figure in the billion dollar sex trafficking hysteria industry has also been exposed as a fraud :

Laura Agustin’s blog is :

MonsterBoobz – David Futrelle and his Disturbing Defence of a Film that Consists Almost Entirely of Graphic Scenes Depicting the Sexual Abuse and Torture of Naked Children

**NOTE TO VISITORS – Don’t be fooled by Futrelle’s ridiculous dismissal of this scandal as him simply having ‘once written a news story on a censorship controversy’.

David Futrelle mocked American police officers for thinking it inappropriate for a video containing graphic images depicting naked child actors as young as 14 being anally raped, forced to eat their abuser’s shit, tortured, and slowly murdered, to be rented out alongside other porn films in a seedy gay sex shop. He still continues to refuse to apologize for or even acknowledge this.


David Futrelle
David Futrelle – Naked 14 y.o. boys eating shit can be classic art…and rented out in gay sex shops..

David Futrelle once described an adult male’s fantasy of violently sexually assualting a random boy in a bar as ‘tender’ and ‘erotic’. Writing about this, I posed the question – if this was Futrelle’s idea of a ‘tender’ homoerotic yearning, what would his definition of a more hardcore sexual fantasy involving teenage boys possibly consist of?

Sexually humiliating them? Forcing them to eat human faeces? Mutilating them? Torturing them before murdering them?

No. Futrelle apparently accepts that these evil depravities should not be the subjects of sexual fantasy. We can all breathe a sigh of relief. Especially our teenage sons.

For according to Futrelle, such things are the theme of ‘classic’ art, not sexploitation.

Even when sold in seedy gay bookstores. Even when one of the boy actors later killed himself. Even when the paedophile director of the movie was murdered soon after the film was completed by a child he was abusing in real life. Even when the film is officially banned in at least 15 different countries and is routinely described as the most appalling and grotesque ever made.

David Futrelle was an active freelance writer back in the 90’s, writing for both online and offline liberal publications that included Salon, and ‘In These Times’. Quote-mining from the many articles he wrote in this period, we find that he claimed that an age of consent above 12 is apparently nothing more than prudish feminists ‘controlling the sexuality of young girls’, described the sexual fantasy of violently assaulting a random boy in a bar as ‘tender’ and ‘erotic’, suggested that child rape victims be encouraged to marry their abusers (who would be spared jail), repeatedly accused the world’s leading child protection organizations (such as the NSPCC) of generating hysteria and lies over child abuse, and railed against the first government efforts to protect children from online paedophilia and porn.

Describing some of these shocking and outrageous viewpoints of David Futrelle, I wondered what more dark secrets and even more disturbing quotes were still to be found in the dusty internet archives, amongst the hundreds of pieces he wrote for his liberal ‘sex positive’ feminist audience back in the 1990’s. I specifically mentioned that the thought of what still might be discovered sent a shiver up my spine…and likely his too.

I wasn’t wrong.

David Futrelle and his Defence of ‘Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom’

How would you describe a ‘man’ who not only cried ‘censorship’ against the authorities for clamping down on a sexploitation film that contained graphic scenes of children being raped, tortured, forced to eat excrement, mutilated, and then murdered, but joked that the store should only be punished for renting out the film to the police who were too stupid to appreciate it?

Most normal, sane, moral people would call such a film beyond evil. One of the traumatized male child actors, who would have been only 15 or 16 when the sickening movie was filmed, in which he is made to eat the shit of his abuser before having his nipples burned off, later killed himself through a drug overdose at the age of just 33. Today, such a film would undoubtedly be classed as category 5 child pornography (the very worst). Writing about the movie back in the 1990’s, David Futrelle judged it only as being ‘not exactly family entertainment’.

In fact, astonishingly, he also joked that instead of arresting the men distributing a film in a gay sex shop that graphicly portays naked (real) underage boys being sexually abused, that they should only be fined for ‘renting films that go over the head of the average undercover cop’.

Futrelle’s defence of the film seems to rest entirely on the status of the director – Pier Paolo Pasolini – as an ‘artistic genius’. Pasolini, a pederast, turned to film-making after his career as a schoolteacher was curtailed due to accusations that he was molesting the children. He is known for handpicking his invariably young and often pubescent actors and embarking upon sexual affairs with them – one such actor was only 15 when Pasolini cast him. Shortly before the release of ‘120 Days of Sodom’, the director was brutally murdered. An underage boy prostitute confessed to the murder, claiming that Pasolini had attempted to anally rape him. However, the child recanted the confession decades later, and the case was re-opened. Some suspect that Pasolini may have been killed by an outraged family member of the young cast, who were all aged between 14-18.

This grotesque sexploitation movie is officially banned in 15 different countries, although, as stated above, it should undoubtedly be automatically classed as the worst form of child pornography. Its defenders claim that it makes an artistic statement about the ‘corruption of power over innocence and youth’. The abusers in the film are portrayed as Italian wartime fascists who kidnap eight teenage boys and girls and subject them to 120 days of grotesque sexual torture and humiliation before murdering them. I have not watched the movie, and never will, but according to most online reviews and descriptions, it consists almost entirely of the graphic depiction of these tortures, with the teenage cast of victims, aged as young as 14, none of whom were actors (they were handpicked by the director from a modelling agency for their good looks and almost pre-pubescent appearance) looking genuinely terrified.

Despite the film’s supposed artistic statement about fascism and the corruption of power, and hence justification as an ‘art movie’, rather than porn or sexploitation, it is unclear why the director was homosexual, the audience of the film appears to be mainly homosexual, most of the positive online reviewers of the movie appear to be homosexual, why most of the movie’s focus is aparently on the graphic sexual torture of naked underage boys, and why the movie was being rented out in a Cincinnati ‘gay and lesbian bookstore’ that deals mainly with erotic homosexual products.,_or_the_120_Days_of_Sodom

Just a handful of dozens of scathing Amazon customer’s review (yes, unbelievably this is still being sold openly on Amazon) :

Its disgusting. Watching people go through this, it seemed real to me, like watching a documentary of children being tortured. I think people who get off watching sickening abuse call this art as an excuse to watch it, when really they just get off watching torture porn. there is something wrong with this world. children being tortured and raped is not art. there is no reason for this movie to exist it should be illegal. sickening, horrifying, will haunt you for the rest of your life.

Unless watching a group of naked children cry for two hours is your idea of a good time, I say pass this one up.

I have read the reviews of what a deep movie this is and the important social message. What I saw was a badly acted porno with some near vomit-inducing moments. It’s as if the director was looking for an excuse to portray acts of pedophilia and extreme cruelty and then calling it art to justify it. How anyone can sit through this more than once and get some kind of enjoyment from it is beyond me.

David Futrelle still tries to incite violence against a frail old man for a misquoted comment made nearly half-a-century ago.

I found watching a roomful of innocent youths forced to eat their own feces in graphic detail nauseating, unsettling, and strangely banal. Populating a film with images of extreme violence does not substitute for commentary or condemnation. Leering at these victims is tantamount to one being complicent in their fates. There is nothing educational, liberating, life-affirming, or redeeming about Salo. If this is your thing, skip out on the nonexistent artistic pretense and take a trip to your neighborhood adult movie store.

(If David Futrelle had his way, perverts would be able to rent this at adult movie stores, or at least gay and lesbian adult movie stores).

David Cronenberg’s film Videodrome was right: pretty soon people will be wanting to watch movies of pure torture, with no redeeming values what so ever. Im sure I’ll get o out of 137 people finding this review helpful, and that sickens me. In my opinion, movies like this are bad for your mind. The whole movie is a bunch of innocent teenagers being torured, raped, molested, disembowled, and wirse things of which I won’t even describe. I can’t believe people enjoy this movie. Im not trying to insult anyone, im just trying to get people to realize that they are enjoying a movie about kids being tortured and sodomized. Im not some fanatical christian, or over protective parent, Im just a college kid whose worried about what movies like this do to people’s minds

Only the cruelest and most sadistic moron could enjoy this movie. It is repugnant and rejects every decency of which man is capable.

The imagery of the two men french-kissing with excrement on their mouths has been difficult to erase, not to mention the child rapes, the scenes of mutilation, and total absence of responsibility for the creation of such an otherwise gross and boring film.

This film is sick. Very sick. I am not a prude. I am a grown up gay man with rather radical views.
Still this film made me throw up when I saw it while preparing to write an essay on the director for a gay, cultural magazine.
I am aware of Pasolinis intentions of describing the real inner life and dephts of fascism, and I hate anything that even comes near to fascist views, even ordinary right wing views.

And still: This is the most evil film I have ever seen.
To think up this film, even with the literary source of it as a background, Pasolini had to use his own imagination. And I am glad I never knew a person with such an imagination (at least I hope I don’t know any such person).
And worst of all: The young kids in the movie had to go through these scenes, to act out this sick story. To do those things! I do really hope they have been taken good care of ever since!

(The above Amazon reviewer appears unaware that one of the child actors killed himself aged just 33).

Only serial killers and child molesters will get any enjoyment out of seeing this more than once.

David Futrelle O Face
disgraced blogger and child scat gay torture porn apologist David Futrelle

This film is not as graphic as one may make it seem. It’s the overall feeling you get once the movie’s over that makes you want to crawl into a hole. Watch Cannibal Holocaust if you want something gut-wrenching. Watch Salo if you enjoy watching 15-year-old boys getting sodomized for 2 hours.

What can possibly be artistic about a film which shows a table full of adults and children eating human feces, vivid scalpings, genital burnings, continuous sodomy, organ mutilations, and teen children being lead around naked on leashes and forced to bark and eat scraps of food from a dog dish ??? THIS is supposed to be art ??? Salo is nothing but pure evil. No other film is as brutally, vividly disturbing as this one. But that does NOT make it a work of art.

I’ve never advocated censorship at all, but Salo changes my mind – particularly since it involves cruelty to minors. If the director Pasolini, as some rumors suggest, was murdered as a reaction to making this film, it is not hard to believe. This is celluloid at its worst. Every copy on the market should be deleted and destroyed.

People who have seen the film tell me that Pasolini made the film to show the true ways of our human nature and how bad people can be.What a bunch of crock!This is the most violating and sickest film I have seen.Hey,I like watching graphic films but I have my limits and this film goes way over that limit.”Salo,or the 120 Days of Sodom” is worthless,pointless,violating and the most trashiest,sleaziest sickest film ever made.Who cares if Pasolini was an artist.I have no respect for this film or Pasolini.How can I after what I have seen.

All biases aside, this film is nothing more than 117 minutes of continuous torture and sexual perversion directed at young people. Any socially responsible director can get his point across without feeling the need to wallow in this filth with child actors being violated in nearly every way possible . I have no doubt that Passolini either was getting his jollies out of the action being performed in front of his camera or was suffering great mental illness in order to allow his cast to be degraded in this way. It really is no wonder he was murdered shortly after completion of this film….As another reviewer has previously said this is an evil film and leaves an incredibly bad taste in ones mouth particularly when one realises they have partaken in this viewing experience willingly and contributed to the films revenue.

Do not listen to the positive reviews on this page unless you like to see the sexual torture of innocent children.

Even if this work had artistic merit, which IS VERY DEBATABLE. The detrimental effect on society through desensitization and moral corruption would more than neutralize any gain in expression. Based on a debit to credit argument, this film is a LOSER.

I tell you the point, the film may have begun as an analogy of fascism, but it deteriorated into a display of the director’s perverted fantasies. That is why it is so pointlessly excessive. A director using the theme of fascism as an opportunity to produce a perverse sadistic film. Another example of art used as a pretence, to really disguise a darker intend and desire.

Now the people who watch this film over and over, well all I got to say is this, be careful of them…. very careful

And I would add to that be very careful…and I mean very careful..of a man who attacked the police for removing this film from a gay sex shop, and yet who tries to make a career (and get laid) out of criminalizing the very idea that men and boys have rights.

See also : Did David Futrelle Defend Child Prositution and an Age of Consent of 12?

David Futrelle – The ‘innocence’ of children and women victims of abuse is ‘exaggerated’

Soraya Chemaly, Al Jazeera, and the SLPC face tough questions over association with David Futrelle, child abuse apologist