MHRA Child Torture Porn Apologists

David Futrelle has infamously defended the gay sex shop distribution of a paedophile made ‘classic’ child torture movie featuring real and naked 14 year old boys ‘acting’ in a film in which they are made to eat excrement, anally raped, tortured and murdered. No surpises there. After all, Futrelle is simply following in the footsteps of other notable male feminists such as Kyle Payne, jailed for sexually assaulting a sleeping schoolgirl who was in his care and then again for downloading kiddy porn, and Hugo Schwyzer, a sex predator who admits that he once tried to murder his girlfriend.

What is more disturbing, is that many MHRAs share Futrelle’s sick views on videos of naked children being tortured being rented out in gay sex shops.

Over a 20 year period, Futrelle has steadfastly refused to apologise for his defence of Salo and continues to justify the film’s sale in a gay porn store on the grounds that, obscenely, the sick movie can be viewed on Netflix and YouTube. This is a man who has gone on record to claim that a picture of a 17 year old girl in jeans is clearly ‘child porn’ in the context of a ‘jailbait’ subreddit or forum and that those who view such legal pictures are ‘paedophiles’.

Of course, many so-called MHRAs share Futrelle’s feminist views on the definition of child porn, as well as the feminist age of consent, or at least publicly claim to do so, whatever their disturbing motivations are. Laws which in the UK and elsewhere are currently leading to witch hunts against men, a spike in the male suicide rate, and the undermining of any semblance of justice. However, even more disturbingly, many of them appear to share Futrelle’s views on the distribution in a gay sex shop of a movie that graphically depicts nothing else but the torture, rape, and murder of naked children. A movie directed by a man who turned to filmmaking after losing his job as a teacher due to molesting the children, and who was infamous for handpicking beautiful young 14 and 15 year old boys to star in his movies and immediately embarking upon sexual affairs with them.

Last night I had yet another MHRA leave a comment on this site denouncing us as ‘pedobears’ for admitting what every man knows – that teenage girls can be sexy – and for attacking the logic of the feminist age of consent laws that are leading to a clear sexual holocaust against men, things that any real supporter of men’s rights should do. The same MHRA, like several others, made a point of defending SALO and, by implication, Futrelle’s support for the movie’s sale in a gay sex shop. Unfortunately, this MHRA was too cowardly to leave his regular handle, but several others have not been so shy and have openly supported a gay child torture porn movie both here and elsewhere in the MRM. I thought it would be useful to start compiling a list of MHRA child torture porn apologists here. This will be a sticky page, and I’ll update it regularly as these staunch defenders of the rights of boys continue to support the idea of gay men fapping off to naked 14 year boys being anally raped and then made to eat their abuser’s shit before being tortured slowly to death.

I must make it clear that not all MHRAs support Futrelle over the ‘right’ of gay men to rent videos of naked underage boys being raped and murdered in gay porn shops. In fact, a small minority have actually spoken out and attacked Futrelle over the matter. Janet Bloomfield (JudgyBitch) obviously stands out, to her eternal credit. And Paul Elam and Dean Esmay themselves, have also condemned Futrelle a couple of times, as they should (in fact, they should be a little louder).

Let’s start with our old friend ‘Kloo2Yoo’.

Kloo2Yoo (former moderator of r/mensrights). The clueless subhuman paedocrite Kloo2Yoo once reported a men’s rights redditor to the FBI for uploading a famous photograph that has appeared on Hallmarks cards to the men’s rights subreddit. Consisting of the image of a little girl lifting up her skirt to a bewitched little boy, with a caption that said something along the lines of ‘with this I will have power over you always’. It was clearly a relevant men’s rights image and any sane rational person without something disturbing to hide would see it as such. But not Kloo2Yoo, who immediately denounced it as child porn and claimed to have reported to the FBI the MRA who posted the link to the picture.

After the low IQ Kloo2Yoo finally realised he was out of his depth running the fast growing men’s rights subreddit, and handed over moderation rights to slightly more competent paedocrites, he seemed to disappear for a number of years. I assumed that the obvious hardcore paedocrite had been locked up, but no, he turned up out of the blue just at the moment we had David Futrelle on the rack over his defence of SALO, and proceeded to leave a rant in the comments section here defending it as a ‘classic’ art film. This is a man who reported an MRA to the FBI for linking to a Hallmark image with obvious men’s rights relevance. This is a man who banned anyone from the men’s rights reddit for questioning feminist child porn laws that jail men for looking at pictures of ‘young looking’ fairies and elves. This is a man who supported Futrelle in claiming that legal images of fully clothed teens can constitute ‘child porn’ if they are viewed in a ‘sexual context’, and yet, like Futrelle, he sees no problem in the distribution of a movie in a gay sex shop featuring nothing but naked children being raped, tortured, made to eat human faeces, disembowelled, and murdered.

Perhaps ‘pedobears’ isn’t quite the right word for these MHRA child torture porn apologist freaks. Perhaps not even ‘paedocrites’. Maybe ‘pedowolves’, or ‘pedopsychos’, ”pedosnakes’, ‘pedofreaks’, or simply ‘real sadistic paedophile sickos’?

Uchuu – ‘Uchuu’ is another sick MHRA freak who has taken issue with the esteemed JudgyBitch for daring to call out David Futrelle over his defence of gay paedophile torture porn.

http://judgybitch.com/2015/03/27/david-futrelle-redefines-the-words-sick-motherfucker/comment-page-1/#comment-84381

Meh, after reading a summary and some background on the movie, the link rather reads like character assassination. Don’t get me wrong, I so far have nothing good to say about Futrelle, but the movie apparently had just as many female victims as male ones (so, the focus on the “boys” of the article seems dishonest), it wasn’t actually documented child abuse, but something fictional, and I’ve seen no real good argument connecting that one suicide to the filming of the movie. The contents are disgusting enough that I never want to see it, but supposedly it actually has some artistic qualities, so the free speech argument is not completely out of the blue.

Notice, in this one small paragraph, how ‘Uchuu’ resembles so many other child torture porn apologists, both MHRAs and Futrelle groupies. The idea that, because the movie contained naked 14 year old girls being slowly tortured to death, as well as boys, Futrelle’s defence of its distribution in a gay sex shop is not a men’s rights issue. His defence of the movie as ‘artistic’ (not sure how he feels about the fact that, technically, men in Europe could be jailed by feminists for simply reading Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita). Finally, note his love of manga, revealed by his username, no doubt of the hardcore violent rape variety that involves pre-pubescent girls.

19 thoughts on “MHRA Child Torture Porn Apologists”

  1. Did you also note that the cretin who denounced us as ‘pedobears’ pointed out that Dizzy Dean Esmay himself coined the term? I guess that shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody, though.

  2. Another msm mangina article following GQ and highlighting our friend Albert as showing what pervs mras are :

    http://latest.com/2015/03/mens-rights-activists-bunch-whiny-glass-joes-wrong/

    Exactly to be expected, but what’s even more disturbing is the attempts by the MHRAs in the comments section to disown him. The article also points out Elam’s views on rape, but not one of the commentators mentions this or seeks to deny it. Does anyone else find this deeply worrying? MHRAs seem totally untroubled by accusations of being ‘rape apologists’, but will go into meltdown if they are accused of questioning feminist age of consent laws. 15 year olds, or even 17 year olds, having completely willing sex is beyond the pale for them, but all feminist rape laws are up for discussion. 16 year olds will soon have the vote in the UK and much of Europe, but 17 year olds can’t possibly consent to sex, and any mra who claims otherwise is a fraud and a ‘pedobear’. At the same time, getting 19 year olds blind drunk before fucking them is 100% o.k., maybe giving them a slap or two first if they deserved it.

    It’s no wonder so many of them are willing to defend Salo.

    Oh, and check out ‘Gwallen’ (I think we might have come across him before), claiming he was ‘raped’ by his aunt at the age of 6. I mean Jesus Christ, sexually assaulted maybe, but ‘raped’?? She used a strap on dildo to penetrate his anus or something?

  3. http://judgybitch.com/2015/03/14/in-defense-of-pedophilia/

    “Pedo-hysteria has absolutely nothing to do with “protecting” children and everything to do with demonizing male sexuality. It is perfectly natural for adult humans to find other adult humans who have matured to the point that secondary sex characteristics are visible, sexually attractive. Germaine Greer herself had no problem perving out on extremely young men and most of North America continues to turn a blind eye to women who sample very young men sexually.”

  4. Also check out the comments in the ‘Latest’ article from Lovely Sheila Sasha S-K. We’ve run into that one before too. But there was a good comment from Judgybitch, though. LOL

  5. Paul Elam and Dean Esmay both tweeted the link to JudgyBitch’s article. ELam tweeted the correct title with the ‘defence’ in quote marks (as JudgyBitch is making it clear that feminists have inflated the idea of paedophilia AND what it means to ‘defend’ paedophilia. Esmay simply tweeted the link as – ‘JudgyBitch defends paedophilia’.

  6. I see judgybitch does not ban paedocrites/feminist subverts there like you do here, but at the very least she is letting my comments and a few others through that are very “politically incorrect” in nature.

  7. *edit* There is one commenter there that is a mother… You can only guess what she is saying. I am not going back there, because she is just a paedo-hysterical feminist-lite drone. SMH, why can’t people stand up against these fear-mongers?

  8. SMH, why can’t people stand up against these fear-mongers?

    If you mean why so few in the MRM can stand up to them, my guess is :

    1/ Many in the MRM are professional victims, or ‘survivors’, who get some kind of deep rooted psychological satisfaction from presenting themselves as sex abuse victims in the context of the narrative that ‘feminists don’t care about them’. A sort of double victimhood, not only abused, but abused by a society that doesn’t care about them. Most of these male ‘survivors’ are obese slobs who would be incapable of being found attractive by any woman on Earth, probably for their entire adult lives (ex: Dean Esmay).

    2/ Some may genuinely feel that any discussion of age of consent issues would be ‘killing the cause’ of men’s rights. The problem I have here is that few of these MHRAs seem to have any inhibitions with regard to stridently attacking feminist (adult) rape laws. In fact, they seem to welcome the controversy that talking about rape laws in such an aggressive and unaplogetic manner will bring them. And, rather more disturbingly, as we discussed above, so many of them are only too eager to jump to the defence of a film like Salo.

    3/ Most of them are simply paedocrites, and many may be hardcore paedocrites (i.e. they are looking at illegal child porn). They really don’t want the FBI taking a look at their online viewing habits, and screaming ‘paedo apologists’ or ‘this has nothing to do with men’s rights’, makes them feel a little more safe.

    But as far as JudgyBitch banning paedocrites or those attacking discussion of age of consent laws, she can’t really do that without alienating a lot of the men’s human rights movement (all of the sheilas in particular).

  9. Also, this is unfortunate what she said:
    “I still think age of consent laws need two caveats:
    1. Age difference
    2. Mistaken identity

    Two teenagers exploring their sexuality, consensually, should never end up on a sex offender registry, which is meant to identify sexual predators, simply because they failed to meet an arbitrary age set by the government.”

    For the fact she hits the nail on the head, she still wants to treat “older people” as automatically untrustworthy….

  10. Two teenagers exploring their sexuality,

    These arseholes trot out the same ‘arguments’ – I don’t think they have any clue what they mean. What does ‘teenagers exploring their sexuality’ mean? So if at a party a 15 year old goes upstairs and has sex with another 15 year old boy she just met, they are ‘exploring their sexuality’, but if she goes up with a 25 year old and has exactly the same sex, she is being abused and manipulated?? Do they imagine the 25 year old is saying to her things like ‘hehe innocent girl, this is called a penis, and it goes in that wet hole of yours there, hehe. This is what we adults call sex, but that probably doesn’t mean anything more to you than a quantumn physics theorom,hehe’?

    And even if the 25 year old is more ‘knowledgeable’ about sex, perhaps that’s a good and healthy partner for a younger girl to experience sex with. Not some clumsy testosterone fuelled 15 year old who just wants to boast to his mates that he’s lost his virginity.

  11. If you’re referring to ‘that1susan’, I honestly don’t think her comments are that bad.

    She does identify the relevance of virginity and the context of whether society values virginity in females.

    21st century doesn’t. That’s why the age of consent laws are an obscenity.

    Fair play to you and Eric, but the vast majority of Christians, who do not approve of pre-marital sex, will support a high age of consent in a society in which females are starting puberty earlier and getting married later. This is exactly why the feminist (Christian) puritans raised the age of consent from 12 to 16.

    There is no chance on Earth that a Christian society will ever let men have sex with unmarried adolescent girls or indeed, view you with intense suspicion when you have a ‘platonic’ relationship with a teenage girl, another Christian man’s future wife.

    Similarly, as I’ve said before, there is no chance on Earth that a conservative Christian society will accept men downloading virtual sex games or holographic porn videos in 10 or 20 years time.

    And before Jay quotes reams of scripture indicating that the Bible admitted that 13 year olds are attractive – that has no relevance.

    Also, she does point out the rank hypocrisy of the manosphere types who go on about how sex devalues women and erodes civilisation, whilst teaching other men the ‘skills’ neeeded to work out how to turn any woman into an alpha cock hungry slut. This parody twitter account sums it up pretty well :

  12. Errr, JudgyBitch is the one who said that about “two teenagers exploring their sexuality”. Not anyone in the comments.

    Her points might be valid about virginity, but she was using these points to sort of support the age of consent the way it is. She is being very slippery in the comments, but here is an example that shows her true colors (and people responded in kind):

    “I’m more concerned about the adults whom we’ve entrusted to have more than casual access to our kids, so the example in the article of the teacher in his 40’s who had sex with his 16-year-old student was rape, in my opinion. And I’d see it as rape even if she’d been a couple years older and still in high school.”

    Also, I just noticed: Do a search pattern for “access”, and you will see why I don’t like her. She continues the assumption that if a teacher has sex with a student, he is bad no matter what. I myself believe that no matter what the age, if it was consensual, the WORST thing that should happen is he is fired from the school.

    Considering all this, I will take the good things from this article: 1. The excerpt you posted, and 2. All of the non-paedocritical comments (including one guy doesn’t mind any age gap)

  13. Errr, JudgyBitch is the one who said that about “two teenagers exploring their sexuality”. Not anyone in the comments.

    Hmmm..ok, but it wasn’t clear as you’d just made a point about a ‘mother’ who was talking crap in the comments.

    Also, the quote you selected continues with her making the comparison between a 13 year old boy and his 15 year old girlfriend, and a 13 year old boy and his 40 year old girlfriend.

    At no point in the article do I read her supporting the present age of consent of 16. Given that, to mention that the age difference has relevance in terms of prosection and the registry is quite fair. Unless you’re human-stupidity, most of us here believe there has to be an age of consent. Suppose JudgyBitch thinks it should be 14 (actually, she does believe that and I’ve quoted her here in the past from her Twitter account stating that directly). Nobody would think that a 15 year old should be prosecuted for having illegal sex with a 13 year old (if the aoc was 14). However, if we say the same for a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old, what would be the point of having an age of consent if we don’t apply it?

    Teenagers (boys) being put on the registry for having sex with other teens is a problem in the USA, and happens more often here in the Uk (at least older teens with 12/13 year olds). It almost never happens anywhere else in the western world.

    The problem I have with the ‘teens fucking teens is o.k.’ argument is when it’s used to automatically assume that older men having sex with teens is wrong. I don’t think, in the context of the entire article, that’s quite what JudgyBitch is trying to say.

    It might not be that ‘older men are less trustworthy’, but more a case of ‘older men should be able to respect the law’. The latter point still leaves it undecided what the age of consent should be, but the former implies that the age of consent should be high, but that it shouldn’t apply to older teens having sex with younger teens.

    As far as the that1susan woman is concerned and her comment about teacher/student sex (I assume you’re referring to her again and not JudgyBitch) – her comment might be coloured by the fact that in the USA any illegal adult/minor sex is defined as rape, so she might really just be saying that teachers having sex with high school students should always be illegal.

    I’m not defending her (that1susan), I’m just pointing out that in 10 years of being involved in the MRM, that’s probably the best article from a leading MRA on the subject (outside of AH and Steve Moxon), and the least amount of paedocrite and negative comments underneath it that I’ve ever seen.

  14. You wrote a really excellent response to that MHRM dork. If I remember right, he’s a paedocrite too because he praised Lucien Valsan’s article about men finding Brigette Bardot sexy as being ‘perverts’.

Comments are closed.