David Futrelle and the ‘co-ercive strategies controlling the sexual behaviour of YOUNG girls’

In reply to it becoming open knowledge that David Futrelle appeared to defend child prostitution and an age of consent of 12 or 13, he has quoted an obtuse passage from the book he was reviewing in his original infamous article that he wrote back in the 1990’s.

His pathetic defence begins by his claiming that he meant women when he said girls….even when he said ‘YOUNG girls’.

The rest of his ‘defence’ then blatantly contradicts this. Even though he means adult women when he refers to ‘young girls’, he then likens his statement regarding ‘co-ercive strategies’ to the modern abstinance movement…which is aimed at young girls…i.e. YOUNG GIRLS.

Take a look at the passage from his article yourself :

david-futrelle-age-of-consent-campaign

It is clear from the very quotes Futrelle took from Josephine Butler, that ‘co-ercive strategies’ is being used by both Butler and himself in reference to legal measures.  It only makes sense in a context of there also being ‘non-coercive’ strategies employed by the Butlerites (which would be akin to simply ‘encouraging’ abstinance and the like). The ONLY legal ‘co-ercive strategies’ that the Butlerites engaged in was to (successfully) campaign for the raising of the age of consent – raised from 13 to 16 in the 1885 Criminal Amendment Act, also subtitled ‘An act to make further provision for the protection of women and girls.

Any reasonable reader would interpret David Futrelle’s statement as referring to that act – the raising of the age of consent from 13 to 16 with the aim of ending child prostitution.  Particularly in the wider context of David Futrelle’s writings in the 1990’s, which often deal with the theme of abuse, and in particular child sexual abuse, with Futrelle often crudely mocking the very idea of it (including claiming that the innocence of victims of abuse is exaggerated in an article in which he compares child abuse victims to ‘victims’ of alien abduction).  Futrelle also once suggested that 13 year old statutory rape victims should be encouraged to marry the men who raped them.  He also worked alongside Judith Levine at the time, the world’s most famous ‘statutory rape apologist’ (as Fraudtrelle would now label her).  One of Futrelle’s articles is actually referenced in her book ‘Harmful to Minors’ which calls for the age of consent to be lowered back down to 12.

19 Comments on "David Futrelle and the ‘co-ercive strategies controlling the sexual behaviour of YOUNG girls’"



  1. I might be missing something, but aren’t most of the readers here okay with a lower age of consent? So while his views on abuse and prostitution are extreme, he spoke the truth about why the age of consent was raised? That there is nothing bad about lowering it back down to 12-13? Like I told my viewer the other night that brought up incest. Just because you legalize something doesn’t mean everyone is going to go out tomorrow and participate in it. In fact, just the opposite might occur.


  2. Just to be perfectly clear, I hate this guy on so many levels. I just want to make sure we are on the same page in that “the blind squirrel found the nut” with regards to why the age of consent was introduced.


  3. I might be missing something, but aren’t most of the readers here okay with a lower age of consent?

    Yes, what you’re missing is social context here. David Futrelle is trying to have you put in prison to be anally raped just for expressing the view that the age of consent should be lower.

    Thing is..

    he’s been saying identical things (and far more extreme and genuinely shocking things) himself in the past.

    And we need to let him and the world know it.


  4. Just to be perfectly clear, I hate this guy on so many levels. I just want to make sure we are on the same page in that “the blind squirrel found the nut” with regards to why the age of consent was introduced

    I guess we are looking at this through different eyes Jon. No offence, but just as its strikes you as odd that somebody who has published numerous articles supporting a lower age of consent is now calling out someone else for doing the same, I find it hard to understand how you can’t percieve the reason why I’m doing it – to hit back at someone trying to have me and you put in prison to be anally raped just for writing and reading those articles.

    A different tack…these anti-futrelle articless are not really aimed at you or the regular reader. They’re for a different audience. i.e. the mainstream media who are looking to Futrelle every time they need an ‘expert’ on the men’s rights movement.

    And I just have to make it absolutely clear here now – my opposition to his defence of SALO, as well as one or two of the other more extreme viewpoints of the monsterboobz, is 100% genuine.


  5. There’s only a couple of readers here perhaps who even remember the attacks Futrelle was making on me(and JayHammers) back in 2008 when I’d only recently started this site.

    The guy was making blatant lies such as claiming that I wanted the age of consent abolished alltogether, and that I represented the ‘very worst of the men’s rights movement’.

    After I responded in kind, he ignored me for 5 years until now that AVfMen have finally taken up his past writings to use against him.

    Now he’s accusing me again of being a ‘real’ paedophile apologist. I guess what he means is, unlike him, I haven’t turned into a paedocrite, and my views on the age of consent and paedohysteria are consistant.

    He also accused me of ‘investing heavily’ into lowering the age of consent. To ‘prove’ this he quoted one of my comments left as a reader at an article at the Economist – the article was actually discussing the legislative creep and implying that a sexual holocaust could be around the corner. That’s the Economist, a pretty mainstream publication I would have thought.

    As for ‘investing’, all I’m trying to do is avoid a sexual holocaust that could claim millions of victims. There is absolutely zero chance of the age of consent being lowered in my lifetime, so there is zero investment for my part in terms of wishing it was legal to have sex with young teenage girls. The point of discussing the age of consent is to attack the underlying logic behind paedohysteria and the feminist legislative creep. Having said that, I’m not a hypocrite and I don’t mind stating categorically that I believe it would be a much fairer world if the age of consent was lower. But there is no selfish investment on my part for saying this, because the chances of it happening in my lifetime are pretty much zero.

    However…

    back in the 90’s, when Fraudtrelle was making these articles, few would have bet against the age of consent being lowered at some point. In fact, unless you had a crystal ball, you couldn’t have predicted with certainty what direction society would have been led on by the introduction of the internet into people’s lives.

    Real sex positive feminism still looked as though it had a chance back then. David Futrelle also had a fair bit of influence on it, or at least, he might have thought he had.

    The internet might have produced a new wave of sexual liberalism and put an end to paedocrisy. Of course, as we know now, it produced one of the greatest and most backward moral hysterias in human history. However, few could have predicted that with certainty.

    David Futrelle had A LOT to invest in by talking about statutory rape and defending even extreme child porn being sold openly in gay sex shops.

    I’m simply sacrificing myself here in the remote hope of avoiding a genuine crime against humanity.


  6. I accept however, there are some issues with these articles being directed at and then quoted by AVfM and the MHRAs, most of whom are paedocrites, as a result of the need for them (being much bigger voices) to be using these weapons against Futrelle that I’ve given them, without appearing to condone their paedocrite and feMRA co-opted views on teenage sex.


  7. I guess I am looking at it with different eyes. I wasn’t around here before last fall, so a lot of this stuff I didn’t witness. You just have to understand that although within the context, him talking about these lower ages of consent are bad, I just wish you could clarify that he was right about the reason for the first ages of consent. Also that a lower age of consent is not messed up in any way (like he is).

    All in all, I just wanted to make sure you weren’t trying to say that this site opposes an age of consent of 12 or 13. Or that the truth behind the age of consent, are bitter older women trying to control the sex of men.


  8. I guess a good test of the degree of fallout for Futrelle over his support for Salo and his old articles is whether he appears on CNN again or any other mainstream media outlet.


  9. You just have to understand that although within the context,

    The point I’m trying to make Jon, is that I believe 99% of my readers would be able to understand the context.

    And I hope you’re not accusing me of being a paedocrite.


  10. Or that the truth behind the age of consent, are bitter older women trying to control the sex of men.

    Of course he’s saying that!
    That is almost the whole underlying theme that this whole site virtually floats upon. Feminists: their ‘Sexual Trade Union’ and the various ways that union controls men, but chiefly by scapegoating them and eventually CRIMINALIZING their normal sexuality and of course, the simplest way for them to accomplish that is by raising the age of consent!

    But, why on earth would YOU (a man who purports to be an antifeminist), have a problem with that?


  11. I suppose most of your readers would understand the context. I just don’t want new viewers to be confused 1 month from now, when you talk about a low age consent as being a good thing. Basically separating the good from the bad is all I wanted to see (even if the good was barely visible). It just worries me to see all this being lumped together with this moron, when the aforementioned things are not bad by themselves.

    No, I am not calling you a paedocrite. Regardless of my faith in who you are, this site is living proof of why you aren’t one.


  12. I just don’t want new viewers to be confused 1 month from now, when you talk about a low age consent as being a good thing.

    Yes, I see there is a possibility of that, but that is outweighed by the fact that I need to fight this monster because he’s trying to get the men’s rights movemement criminalized, you thrown in jail to be raped for talking about the age of consent, and not to mention threatening me with libel action (obviously a joke – I’d almost welcome it to have a chance to discuss in court why Fraudtrelle thinks a video of naked children being tortured should be on sale in a sex shop, as well as all his other numerous writings on child sex abuse). If this site ever becomes illegal, then there will be no new readers to get confused or otherwise by it.

    BTW, the monsterboobz article has gone viral in a number of places and high traffic sites (ex: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/monsterboobz.html ). Now that even Manboobz sends me traffic, I should be up to my highest ever Alexa ranking shortly.

    Unfortunately, I’ll be travelling for a month or more very soon, and I am likely to close comments for the duration of my trip, especially after the previous ‘rebellions’ that have broken out here when I’m away, lol. Even I need a break every once in a while.


  13. Antifeminist:
    Fat-Troll’s groupies have been egging him on to start a libel suit against Judgybitch too. The Blobfish has been discreetly waving them off so far—I think he sees Hugo Schwyzer’s present as his future if this goes viral much beyond the Manosphere.


  14. Fat-Troll’s groupies have been egging him on to start a libel suit against Judgybitch too. The Blobfish has been discreetly waving them off so far

    The guy’s insanity and self-deceit doesn’t stretch quite far enough to attempt a lawsuit. At some level he is aware of the fact that it would result in him having to explain in a court of law why he continues to defend the renting out in a gay sex shop of a film featuring naked 14 year olds eating shit and being tortured – ‘classic’ art or not. That in the same year he claimed (twice) that we all secretly harbour fantasies of killing and torturing other people. It would also be put in the context (in court) of all of his other writings defending abuse and child abuse in particular, including his attack on Bill Clinton’s attempt to regulate infamous internet porn ‘newsgroups’. Not to mention the fact that at least several of his readers have openly admitted getting off on extreme manga child torture porn, and many others appear to have a fetish for pre-pubescent girls.

    And all this is in the context that his whole present career consists of quote mining and mis-representing the views of his political opponents in order to discredit them, including openly libelling mras (and others) as paedophiles for simply discussing feminist laws on child abuse.

    Then there’s also the ‘David Futrelle’s Girly Page’, which he had online around 10 years ago, and which according to the WayBackMachine, had most of its traffic from some distinctly dubious porn sites.

    I notice the freaks and paedophiles at his site are currently mocking the ‘paedophile’/’ephebophile’ distinction. Ironically, as part of their child torture porn apologia the other day, they were claiming that the actors in Salo were sixteen, not six, so ‘not really underage or paedophilia’. Lol.

    Child torture porn apologia..oh sorry..ephebophile torture porn apologia!


  15. There was some sick show on Aus TV last night about a 39 year old bloke who’s married to a 78 year old woman. They were trying to spin this as romantic. If he’d got himself a nice teenage girl as befits as man his age, they’d calling him a pervert but this sick shit is a-okay. Utterly repugnant and indicative of the utterly fucked-up society in which we live.

Comments are closed.