Just like with any bold step forward in this country, there’s always someone chomping at the bit to criticize it. In the case of plus-size supermodel Tess Holliday, that person is weight loss expert Steve Miller.
While the 29-year-old model’s message “you can be gorgeous and fat” seems super body positive, Miller believes it absolves unhealthy eating habits. He told the Daily Mail, “Tess challenges the fashion industry’s preconceived idea of beauty and believes you can be gorgeous and fat which is ludicrous because fat isn’t great — it’s dangerous.”
Meanwhile, Reddit has apparently banned anti-fat ‘hate speech’ :
Supporting calls for more men to be arrested and caged for ‘manspreading’, Telegraph writer Louise Burke fantasises recounts how she was once ‘groped by a man’s knee’ on the London underground, leaving her feeling as though she had been raped and traumatised for life. Or, as one reader commented, ’50 Shades of Testicle Envy’.
The suit-clad knee was jamming into my thigh so hard I could feel the quickening pulse of its owner through the fabric.
I edged sideways until my legs were awkwardly pushed up against the wall of my window seat on the train, but still his limb strayed up against mine. He opened a broadsheet newspaper across his lap – and half-way across mine – and pretended to read.
Mortified and trapped, I held my breath as I tried to decide what to do.
The passengers around me had no idea what he was doing – the paper was blocking the view of his leg and even if it hadn’t been, he probably just looked like any other careless bloke taking up too much leg room.
But at close quarters, his nervous breathing and the pressure of his leg betrayed the thrill he was getting from making me his target…
..I stood at the carriage doors without looking back until I reached my station, then walked home, checking regularly that I wasn’t being followed. I felt dirty and ashamed I had been too cowardly to say anything.
This sorry experience resurfaced as I read the news that two men have just been arrested for manspreading on the New York metro
**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 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.
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.
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.
I remember my old English teacher telling us that modern makeup is the only reason why the relatively recent phenomenon of females marrying outside of their teenage years is possible. Judging from the evidence here, it seems that makeup is the only reason why the billion dollar adult porn industry can exist too.
As the great Woody Allen once said – ‘sex is 99% in the mind’. And this is why those who believe that virtual sex will never replace the ‘real thing’ are 100% wrong.
The excerpt comes from chapter 4 entitled ‘The Myth of the Bad Man’. Thomas begins by discussing the recent child sex abuse panics that had been imported from the USA, and that had found expression most infamously with the Cleveland abuse scandal.
Whilst reading the passages below, keep in mind that the author was a father, arguing mainly from the perspective that this early paedohysteria was a feminist attack upon fathers and the family, as well as male sexuality in general. Notice that the chapter almost assumes without needing to state explicitly that any intelligent person reading, with a support for men’s rights and a distaste in radical feminism, would agree upon a definition of sexual abuse involving only the forced penetration of a child by an adult. It is a testament to the success of feminist paedo-hysteria, along with American puritanism, that less than 20 years later, it is ‘creepy’ to suggest even that men should not be jailed for years as paedophiles by feminist laws so absurd they define looking at pictures of 30 year old women with small breasts as ‘child abuse’.
“….By then an unlikely alliance of anti-family and anti-patriarchy ideologues, fundamentalist religious fantasists and misguided media celebrities, ever eager for a bandwagon upon which to jump, had managed to persuade the nation that one in three children suffered from sexual abuse administered by men. What they tended not to reveal was that their conclusions were a deliberate twisting of research which defined abuse in an extremely general sense. Far from it consisting exclusively of the forcible intercourse which most of us tend to imagine, however disgustedly, in these circumstances, the term was applied to any unwanted sexual experience of any kind. Any little girl who had seen a flasher in the park had, by that definition, been abused. Any little boy whose maths teacher had put his hand on his knee had been abused.
Penetration by a penis formed a small proportion of total cases of abuse. Of those cases, many occured between step-fathers and teenage daughters. Of the rest, most involved vaginal, rather than anal penetration. Only a minute fraction within a fraction comprised the activity alledged by the doctors at Cleveland, to wit, the anal penetration of small boys and girls by their fathers.
In my view, the obsessive search for evidence of such perverse behaviour tells you more about the people doing the searching than it does about those being searched. But, lest anyone doubt the harm that such obsession may bring, let me quote from a letter that was published in the Solicitors’ Family Law Association Newsletter, November 1991. It was written by a lawyer, whose name and gender were not revealed, although I presume from the account given in the letter that she is female.
“I was sexually abused over a period of approximately two and a half years by a male near relative who had been adopted into my mother’s family. The sexual abuse has, so far as I am aware, had little discernible effect upon me. The discovery of the sexual abuse and the trauma of the investigation by professionals have had a profound impact upon me.
When Esther Rantzen introduced her Childline, with the attendant television programmes, I watched, and found to my shock, that the description by one of the participants of the medical examination she had following the discovery of sexual abuse caused me to cry uncontrollably.
I will never forget the ordeal I was put through at the age of seven. I will never forget the feelings of shame, degradation and intense physical invasion when examined by a paediatrician. I have no doubt that the same paediatrician would, if questioned, have stressed the consideration, tact, and understanding he showed to me on examination.
My views were not sought as to whether I should be examined. I doubt if I would have had the knowledge or understanding to express or hold my own views. In retrospect, of course, I have strong views, but those are formed only with the knowledge of hindsight. I was seven : these were ‘grown ups’ who knew best what should be done with me.
How much needless suffering is caused by children who have been sexually abused by the professionals?…In my own view, the sexual abuse I suffered, was to quote a judge in a rape trial, ‘a pretty tepid affair’. The subsequent sexual abuse I suffered at the hands of a paediatrician will live me for the rest of my life.”
Later in the same Chapter, David Thomas continues :
“It is generally agreed that a child who is compelled to have sex with an adult against his or her own will suffers lasting damage. Certainly that would be a common-sense view, and one with which, as a parent, I would instinctively agree. In August 1992, however, the New Statesman published a special issue devoted to opinions that were politically incorrect. One of its articles, by Edward Barrie, suggested that the after-effects of sexual activity might be less traumatic to children than had previously been supposed. In particular, he said :
“An enormous investigation was carried out for the German police by Dr. Michael Baurmann, who reported his findings in 1983. His team carefully assessed 8,058 young people of both sexes (more girls than boys) involved in illegal sexual relationships. They found that in many cases no harm was done – neither emotional nor physical. About 1,000 boys under the age of 14 took part in the study, and not one of those was found to have been harmed. Harm to the girls, when it occurred, was sometimes (not always) a result of the sex act itself, and sometimes the result of heavy-handedness by police, parents and others in the aftermath. Bauermann has shown conclusively that a child may well become a victim purely because victimisation is expected. More recent police department follow-up studies have confirmed the findings.”
Those findings, astounding though they seem at first glance, tally with the experiences of the solicitor whose letter about her experiences of abuse that I reproduced earlier in the chapter. They make me question whether the important social issue which both British and American society needs to confront is not abuse itself, but our apparent obsession with it.
Barrie remarks : “Perhaps most sinister of all, a young woman university graduate working on a doctoral thesis and pursuing the ‘harm done’ aspects of abuse, with help from….overseas experts, was denied a grant unless she came up with findings that would help the authorities ‘detect peadophiles’. She found this distortion of her views unacceptable.”
At this point the truth is clouded with exaggeration and confusion that one cannot do anything other than speculate about what is really going on. But when celebrities que up to reveal ever more lurid accounts of their childhood experiences, or publicise abuse helplines, the sickness to which they bear witness may just be the profound suspicion with which the Anglo-Saxon world regards sex. That, and the belief that the quickest route to public approval is to label oneself a victim – even if one happens to be a millionaire rock star, or a candidate for the presidency.
Consider, specifically, the determination with which some women seek to paint a picture of rampant sexual abuse, practiced entirely by men. Is this motivated by an altruistic desire to cure a social malaise, or just a fearful hostility towards male sexuality as a whole? Are they simply projecting their own terror onto children? Is there anything to choose between the dysfunction that causes an adult to seek out sex with children, and the dysfunction that persuades a doctor or social worker that she is surrounded, on every side, by a raging sea of sex abuse?”
A Russian advertising executive who sued her boss for sexual harassment lost her case after a judge ruled that employers were obliged to make passes at female staff to ensure the survival of the human race.
What should an anti-feminist say about this? Well, each anti-feminist to his own opinion I say. Personally, after having suffered sexual harassment at work myself (from a female and which eventually forced me to leave my job due to the stress – and getting no sympathy whatsoever from any member of the senior staff) I find it hard to cry chivalrous tears reading this, wronged though this woman may have been. I find it also very heartening to witness (and I have been predicting this for many years) that Russia is being forced to recognise that feminism = the death of your civilization. The Russians have had western feminism forced upon them in the space of less than a generation (rather like the Spanish), and consequently have experienced one of the sharpest and most disastrous declines in the birth rate in the entire world (just like the Spanish). The pace of change has occurred rather more gradually in America and the other European countries, giving the feminists time to mask the pernicious effects of their ideology behind the usual smokescreens of lies and political correctness.
Meanwhile, perhaps we too could recall more often the wisdom of Albion’s greatest son:
‘We should be woo’d and were not made to woo’
(Helena’s lament – Midsummer Night’s Dream, William Shakespeare)
Unfortunately, we continue to worship at the barren womb of the most insidious death cult in history.