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 wrote 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.

TRIGGER WARNINGS

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?

http://www.unz.org/Pub/InTheseTimes-1994aug22-00010a02?View=PDF

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%B2,_or_the_120_Days_of_Sodom

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0268668/?ref_=tt_cl_t9

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.

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

79 thoughts on “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

  1. Pingback:

  2. Alan Vaughn

    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?

    Err.. In one word: Peadophile.

  3. low status male

    someone should start #keepfutrelleawayfromourboys

    this is even worse than schyzer

  4. jack

    @Jeff Lewis: I think this has been covered here to some extent, but the story is of course worth belabouring.

    Look at the cover of that Newsweek article: "Save countless girls in Cambodia. Does it matter that key part of the story aren't true?". Holy shit! You haven't read the story and yet you are warned that this person is a saint even if she lied.

  5. jack

    Laura Augustin is probably the one and only true female non feminist we can wholeheartedly agree with. She doesn't go "what is there in in for women" like eg Brooke Magnanti. Mentioning the latter brings to my mind - by pure phonetic association - Rebecca Brooks and her comeuppance, if she gets it.

  6. Eric

    "Not quite family entertainment."

    But if he caught any of us daring to be entertained by a Sabrina Vaz video, I'll bet he'd have harsher words!

  7. Aashley Waagnerr

    @ Jeff Lewis-Thanks for the link to the Newsweek article.
    However, it's one of those articles you need to actually read-the headline might be a bit ambiguous, but it really demolishes Somaly Mam.
    'Experts in sex trafficking say that while it is a serious problem, the scale and dynamics of the situation are often misunderstood, in part because of lurid, sensationalistic stories such as those told by Mam and her “girls.” '
    That's one of the blander things there. Somaly Mam is exposed as a mendacious tyrannical bitch. It gets pretty juicy.
    I believe having a sex-abuse industry icon taken down in such a dramatic way in such a major publication as Newsweek has to count as a turning point.
    One probable result will be to make other story-tellers reign in their horns and think twice before spinning any crap they think will bring them publicity and funds.
    Oh, happy day!

  8. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I think the men's rights movement has finally woken up to the fact that David Futrelle might be a comical pantomime character, but he is trying to get us all arrested as belonging to a 'terrorist hate group', as well as repeatedly suggesting that many of us, including Warren Farrell, are paedophiles.

    It's time to take the gloves off with this creep.

    Look at the tags below under one of his many articles on Farrell, after attacking him again for that one comment on incest made nearly half-a-century ago :

    http://www.donotlink.com/lNK

    You'll notice the tag 'paedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles'. So he's directly accusing Farrell of being a paedophile for that one comment all those decades ago.

    And this is a guy who has claimed that an age of consent above 12 is about 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, railed against the first government attempts to crack down on paedophillia online, and now we learn, defended a sickening child sexploitation movie being rented out in a gay adult book store that consists entirely of the rape, murder, forced shit eating, mutiliation, and torture of children, as being 'art' (but concedes it is 'not quite family entertainment').

  9. theantifeminist

    Post author

    But if he caught any of us daring to be entertained by a Sabrina Vaz video, I'll bet he'd have harsher words!

    I was watching some Sabrina Vaz videos yesterday and was struck again by how unbelievably gorgeous she is. I'm going to put a post up soon of my favourite Sabrina music covers.

    BTW, it's the time of the year when London is full of groups of American teenagers here on 'Education First' trips, as well as groups of Russian language students to compare them with. I honestly can't believe how sickeningly obese American girls are these days. I'm surprised they even managed to fit them on the plane. There was a group the other day in which every single female was grotesquely obese. Well, actually, there were two Asian American girls amongst them who weren't obese, but even those two were chubby.

    It's a shame too, because you can see often that the girls would be quite pretty, or even in some cases very pretty, if they hadn't been deliberately deformed by feminist child abuse 'fat acceptance' culture. Even Sabrina would lose her looks if she was blown up to 250 lbs, lol.

    I honestly can't understand why more Americans aren't saying - "hey, this is child abuse - we're literally deforming and killing our children and promoting it as 'fat acceptance'".

  10. theantifeminist

    Post author

    David Futrelle has claimed that a photo of a 17 y.o. girl in a bikini or a tight pair of jeans is 'child porn'.

    But a film containing nothing but graphic scenes of naked children as young as 14 being raped, mutilated, forced to eat faeces, tortured, and murdered, isn't.

    Sums up what a disturbing psychopathic freak he is.

  11. Pingback:

  12. Eric

    "I think the MRM has woken up to the fact that David Futrelle might be a comical pantomime character..."

    I mentioned before that he really reminds me of those creepy guys who dress in clown suits and hang around children's playgrounds. Here was another guy just like that, also ironically from Fraudtrelle's hometown of Chicago:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

  13. Eric

    "I can't believe how sickeningly obese American girls are these days. It's a wonder they can even fit them on the plane."

    Stats show that nearly 30% of American women are 20+ lbs. overweight.

    I was buying a gift for my cousin lately and looking through a woman's clothing catalogue: the sizes listed were: small, medium, large, x-large, 1xlarge, 2xlarge, 3xlarge, and 4xlarge. That's the first time I'd seen the last one, it must be new.

    I also checked out bra sizes: the largest I remember was 'D'. Now there are DD, DDD, E, EE, and EEE.

    WTF????? These women must be as big around as Sabrina is tall.
    But then again, the same PC thought-police will come down on anybody who questions 'fat acceptance' just like anything else.

  14. Eric

    This latest Fraudtrelle scandal is starting to go viral in the Manosphere. Scarecrow had an article about it today; and I saw the femRA 'Judgybitch' wrote a piece about Futrelle's hypocrisy in attacking Warren Farrell. I left a link on her blog to this article in the comments.

  15. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I was debating with myself whether I hated Fraudtrelle enough to publish this article, then I saw his latest piece on the men's rights conference, in which he again near explicitly calls for violence against Warren Farrell for a quote made half-a-century ago, and all my hesitation vanished.

    And look at some of the comments he allows at his site - this was underneath his 'voice of hatred' article (http://www.donotlink.com/l0m)

    And really, it is extremely disturbing the way that Fraudtrelle thinks he can regularly accuse others of being paedophiles, psychopaths, potential mass murderers, and allow his commentators to do the same, especially on the basis of quotes made decades ago in the case of Farrell, when he himself has said some controversial things in the past, and in the case of his defence of '120 days of sodom', quite appalling and indefensible things, that taken together with his apparent schizophrenic amnesia and paedocrisy, actually suggest he is possibly a dangerous and perverted psychopath.

  16. theantifeminist

    Post author

    There's another curious and potentially disturbing fact about this film that could be linked to Fraudtrelle. One of the main defences of the film as 'art' rather than category 5 child pornography, is that it was voted in the top 100 greatest films of all time by the Chicago Film Critics Association.

    Yes, the 'CHICAGO FILM CRITICS ASSOCIATION'.

    I just wonder if David and 'Genieve' are members of that association? Or maybe it was John Wayne Gacy who voted for it, lol.

  17. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I just took a look at the Wikipedia page of John Wayne Gacy. How could anyone from Chicago defend a film like '120 days of sodom' is beyond me, especially in the 90's when the Gacy crimes were still relatively recent. No doubt Gacy probably fapped off to that film.

  18. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Good comment from Stu at AVfM :

    "My belief is that when ever you are looking at a mangina, you are looking at one of three things. A man who is so desperate for female approval that he will do anything and say anything and agree with anything women want, in order to appease them, either in a quest for sex, affection, or emotional approval. He's a pathetic doormat.

    Or, he is using his mangina persona, as a smoke screen to hide the fact that HE is actually riddled with the sort of personality defects that feminists say are typical male traits. He is violent, or a sexual predator, or a rapist, or a child molester.

    Number three is, that he just says and does what he has to do for political or career gain. He's an ideological whore who supports whatever he has to to keep the money coming in.

    No mangina can be a true friend to any other man. If you think you know manginas who are you friends, you are mistaken. Whenever there is any conflict between you and a woman, they will throw you under the bus and kiss up to team vagina.

    Manginas are the enemy of every male, including their own sons, fathers, brothers, and even themselves."

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/is-david-futrelle-covering-for-violent-feminists/#comment-1444972242

  19. Somaly Mam resigns because of lies she told about Sex Trafficking that did not exist. She was forced out of her own organization because of lies about fake non-existent evil men. How many innocent men are in prison because of this woman? This is the biggest story to effect men's rights in a long time:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/world/asia/anti-trafficking-activist-quits-amid-charges-stories-were-fabricated.html?_r=0

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/world/asia/cambodia-sex-slavery-foundation-hero-resign/

  20. Feminists believe that adult women are less competent than male children when it comes to sex. According to feminists and the legal system: Adult women are less competent than male children when it comes to sex. Male children (boys) can give consent to sex, but adult women can’t.
    According to feminists and law enforcement – Adult women are not capable of giving consent to sex with men or boys under any circumstance.

    In Sweden - The woman is legally defined as being unable to give valid consent, just as an adolescent girl is in the crime of statutory rape. The man is thus defined as morally superior to the woman; he is criminally culpable for his decisions, but she is not. In one case, a 17-year-old boy (a legal minor in Sweden) was convicted under the law, thus establishing that in the area of sex, adult women are less competent than male children.

    See the link below:
    http://bebopper76.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/feminists-believe-that-adult-women-are-less-competent-than-male-children-when-it-comes-to-sex/

  21. theantifeminist

    Post author

    "How many innocent men are in prison because of this woman? This is the biggest story to effect men's rights in a long time"

    This is true, it is certainly a big story that went under my radar, but as you said in another comment, I don't think a leading figure like her being exposed as a fraud will change much. Most people believe that if just ONE woman or child is saved, then all the lies and exaggerations are indeed worthwhile, and this is rooted in the fact that men are disposable, and both men and women are hardwired to see men as disposable. Third Wave feminism isn't about one or two individuals either. It's essentially a force of nature responding to changes in society brought about by technology that are reducing average female sexual market value.

    I would suggest also that the men's rights movement is the only realistic chance we have of preventing 'paying for sex' from being criminalized world-wide within the next 20 years. David Futrelle, the subject of this important article, is trying to get the MRM banned as a hate/terrorist movement, and us all thrown in jail, and he is the most public figure doing so. It also appears that he too is a massive fraud, to say the least.

    We really appreciate the work you do Jeff, and its also encouraging that you're starting to realise that feminists are the enemy per se, and not just a handful of 'anti-sex' feminists, who will be drowned out by all the millions of mythical 'sex positive' feminists apparently out of there (if we're only nice to them and take care to distinguish them from the nasty feminists).

    I'll post an article linking to your site, so please continue this discussion there.

  22. theantifeminist

    Post author

    This latest Fraudtrelle scandal is starting to go viral in the Manosphere. Scarecrow had an article about it today; and I saw the femRA 'Judgybitch' wrote a piece about Futrelle's hypocrisy in attacking Warren Farrell. I left a link on her blog to this article in the comments.

    Thanks Eric. Please everybody share this article as far and wide as possible - the-spearhead.com etc, even Avoiceformen if any readers still have an unbanned account there.

  23. theantifeminist

    Post author

    The freak has replied :

    http://www.donotlink.com/l7I

    "Liveandletlive, ugh, that guy just blatantly makes shit up. The movie in question is considered a classic. It’s not porn or torture porn. It’s on Netflix. I wrote about a censorship controversy involving it. I didn’t offer an assessment of the film itself. And all the other shit about me in there is made up as well, based on misreadings and misrepresentations of other things I wrote 20 years ago.

    I’ve mostly been ignoring him. He’s basically a political pedophile — sorry, ephebophile — whose main issue seems to be how allegedly unfair age of consent laws are."

    Well he could hardly ignore this one, it's not going to go away.

    Sorry Manboobz, you called for the police to be arrested for removing a film from a gay sex shop, rented out with all the other gay pornos, that contains nothing but the graphic abuse and torture of real underage naked children (one of whom later killed himself).

    What misrepresentation or lie have I made there? The link to his 'In These Times' piece is there for all to see, and I've screencaptured it anyway in case it's scrubbed.

    "The movie in question is considered a classic."

    Yea, by the sadistic element of the homosexual intellectual community who fap off to it. Oh, and by the, ahem, 'Chicago Film Critics Association'.

    And what about this for a disturbing comment from one of his fake transgender fans :

    "Then why is he criticizing you for supposedly defending the abuse of boys?

    Is his position that adult men + teenage girls = good
    adults + teenage boys = bad?

    I don’t get it."

    No, sir, my position is consexual sex = good. Rape, torture, forced shit eating, burning off nipples, murder = bad.

    I don't think Fraudtrelle or his fake transgender 'lolita hentai' torture porn groupies have any concept of consent. I guess when feminists distort the definition of consent and rape so much, it's hardly surprise when male feminists can no longer understand and distinguish between a female having orgasms = not rape, and a boy having his nipples burned off and forced to eat shit = rape and abuse.

    The point is that if this film was art and objectively saying something about the human condition, why was it being rented out in a gay sex shop and why do nearly all of its defenders appear to be homosexual. Errr...maybe because it focuses on the sexual torture of underage naked boys?

    Even if it was a 'classic work of art' (which it isn't), any sane person would see the fact of it being sold in a gay sex shop alongside other gay porn, when it features the graphic torture of underage naked boys, as being somewhat problematic. Fraudtrelle called for the police themselves to be arrested.

    Fraudtrelle is clearly a dangerous schizophrenic paedophile psychopath. If he'd held his hands up and said 'well I made a mistake - this was a different era, and the film was made in the anarchy of the 1970's', he might get away with it, but then I guess he can hardly do that when he's accusing Warren Farrell of being a paedophile for a comment made in the 1970's.

  24. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Here's his exact quote regarding Victorian feminists controlling young girls :

    "But even the Butlerites couldn't always heed their own advice, at times falling back on coercive strategies to control the sexual behaviour of young girls"

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/InTheseTimes-1995oct30-00035

    How does he think I am 'misreading' him here? This is what Josephine Butler and her 'Butlerites' are most famous for in history regarding young girls :

    (from Wikipedia)

    "In 1885 she was drawn into another related campaign led by the campaigning editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, William Thomas Stead. He had published a series of articles entitled The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon exposing the extent of child prostitution in London. As a result of this campaign, the age of consent in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was raised from 13 to 16 that same year."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Butler

    In fact, you could fairly claim on the basis of that quote that he was arguing or implying that child prostitution should be legal.

    The guy is just a fucking fat bully who thinks he can, through the use of quote mining, actually take away even the very concept of men as having rights, and yet not have the same thing done to him, when he has a whole archive of extremely controversial quotes, many relating to statutory rape and child sexual abuse.

    I'm 'mis-reading' him far less than he has to me in the past, and does to others in the manosphere on a daily basis.

    By his own logic, he is a paedophile oh sorry a paedophile, and judging from the fact that he believes that films depicting the graphic sexual torture of pre-pubescent looking 14 year old boys should be rented openly in gay sex shops (and the police arrested if they raid them) something potentially even much worse than that.

  25. gwallan

    @Jeff Lewis...

    The United States government is forcing people to lie about being sex trafficking victims because they can’t find enough real victims!

    At the same time they, and other countries, are turning a blind eye to the trafficking of young - mostly prepubescent - boys for sexual purposes among Afghani warlords and their cronies because they are "allies".

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/04/09/afghanistans_dancing_boys_are_invisible_victims.html

    “A kid who is being sexually exploited, if he reports it, he will end up in prison,” she said. “They become pariahs.”

    In March 2008, a Canadian Forces chaplain, Jean Johns, filed a report described how she counselled a Canadian soldier who said he witnessed a boy being raped by an Afghan soldier.

    Johns said at the time that the corporal told her that Canadian troops have been ordered by commanding officers “to ignore” incidents of sexual assault. Johns never received a reply to the report.

    The majority of those trafficked for forced labour in the broader sense are, and have always been male. Even the majority of women trafficked are for reasons other than the sex trade.

    http://gendercide.org/case_corvee.html

    Sex trafficking is another prime example of feminism creating hysteria and massively exaggerating the numbers. No matter what women MUST be viewed as the only victims regardless of the issue at hand. It works too because propaganda rule number one has always been to accuse the purported enemy of doing unspeakable things to women.

  26. oscar

    "At the same time they, and other countries, are turning a blind eye to the trafficking of young - mostly prepubescent - boys for sexual purposes among Afghani warlords and their cronies because they are "allies"."

    They're not turning a blind eye and the large amount of articles worldwide about these boy dancers goes to prove it. It's just that, for the time being, they have other fish to fry. If only the US ruled the world, the condition of women would "improve" so much and the adult partners of these boy dancers would be left to rot in jail... Even more, the media publicity about these pederastic practices serves to confirm the existence of sham trafficking of the kind that can be easily repressed — especially as it is fake. I'm not sure it's a good idea to say " look, they're pounding on fake or exaggerated trafficking and at the same time condoning "horrible" pederastic practices". They will sooner crack down on these homosexual customs whenever they can than stop lying about the extent of trafficking or even its very existence.

  27. jack

    Even the majority of women trafficked are for reasons other than the sex trade.

    For the simple reason that 1 out of every 10 women alive at any particular time has any sexual market value. The other 9 can still be useful as non sexual slave labour though. But even when the latter were only trafficked as non sexual slave labour, they will be portrayed as having been "sex-trafficked at an early age".

  28. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Another 1993 Futrelle article - 'Political Child Abuse'- in which he appears to question the need for any concern for children at a political level, even attacking and mocking Hilary Clinton for no apparent reason other than the fact that she worked for a children's charity :

    "Hilary Rodham Clinton has done her bit for the kids. She works with the Children's Defence Fund, the perfect gig for a first lady who wants to project an image of intellectual independence and social responsibility without appearing, ahem, too liberal."

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/InTheseTimes-1993aug09-00014

    Just prior to that quote he mocks the idea that babies with AIDS are 'innocent victims'.

    What the fuck? They were asking for it David?

  29. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Uh oh...this looks likely to be the killer blow :

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/InTheseTimes-1996jul22-00034

    This is too troubling for words.

    First of all he appears to compare victims of sexual abuse to 'victims' of alien torture....
    then he describes the fact as 'crude' that child sex abusers are demonized, whilst child sex abuse victims are idealized.

    Then he states that there are ALWAYS extenuating circumstances for men who abuse women and children. I'm not sure even ANY MRA has ever said something as crass as that, and any who did, Fraudtrelle would be making a song and dance about it for weeks (or, actually, decades).

    ...then he...oh my fucking God...............

    I'll quote him directly :

    What makes the issue so maddeningly complex, Lamb suggests, ist 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."

    Oh my fucking God...he's clearly arguing that female victims are as equally to blame as their male abusers.

    Oh...and then his only criticism of Lamb's piece is that she stereotypes victims of abuse as being female, and perpetrators as being male. And this is the guy who is now trying to get the very idea of men's rights banned as hate speech?

    I can't even finish this particular article, and there's still dozens more of his articles from the 90's for me to read that likely contain still worse.

    I'm going to be sick (for real).

    Then there's his 'David Futrelle's girly page' from a decade ago that I haven't even touched upon, and which according to the WayBackMachine, got a lot of its traffic from.....

    I need a fucking holiday. I can't take any more of his madness any more, it will drive me insane before too long. If I was David Futrelle I would just shut the fuck up at this point. Ditto for his fake transgender Lolita Hentai torture porn freak fans.

    And why am I the only MRA looking through his old articles??? He's been quote mining the MRM for years trying to get it banned, even to the extent of using quotes from half-a-century ago to incite violence with, and I've pointed out right from the start that he has a whole archive of disturbing quotes that I've just scratched the surface with....and still I'm the only person searching through them???? I seriously don't get it. Am I missing something? Has the rest of the MRM decided he does more good with his clownish attacks than bad, and we don't want to actually completely discredit him? But surely it's about more than us now - namely it's about a moral duty to protect teenage boys, and for that matter, women from this creep?

    Paul Elam, Dean Esmay, TyphonBlue, JohntheOther, haven't got 5 minutes to spare to find an article in which Fraudtrelle claims that female victims (including child sex abuse victims) are as much to blame as their abusers?

  30. Eric

    "I don't think Fat-Troll and his henchmen or the Hentai Freaks have a clear understanding of 'age of consent".

    That's what I noticed immediately that both Futrelle and that female(?) commentator of his made: they understand that the operative word here is CONSENT.

    If teenaged girls were tortured and mutilated in the same way in sadistic film depicts the UNCONSENTUAL torture of teenaged boys, I doubt seriously if anybody would be defending it as 'art'.

  31. Eric

    "Has the rest of the MRM decided he does more good with his clownish acts than bad?"

    I've also noticed that there hasn't been a peep about this out of bloggers like 'Toy Soldiers' or 'PMAFT' who always the loudest screeching about sexual abuse of boys. Interesting huh?

  32. Eric

    "Fraudtrelle claims there are ALWAYS extenuating circumstances for men who abuse women and children."

    I don't even think guys like JeremiahMRA have said anything this extreme. This sounds like something out of Elliot Roger's manifesto---further evidence that Futrelle is a dangerously mentally unbalanced character.

  33. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Well at least we can rely on good old Emma to support us against Fraudtrelle at this point : http://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/are-manosphere-women-like-male-modern-feminists/

    I saw this article being linked on my statcounter, and expected to see Emma denouncing Futrelle's support for a film depicting the rape and murder of 14 year olds. But no, she's actually chosen the occcasion to defend him and tell him its o.k. to try to have us all thrown in jail for criticising feminism, because at the end of the day, Futrelle - the man who gloated when it looked like her boyfriend might spend the rest of his life in prison - might finally get laid as a reward for his efforts, and there's nothing wrong with that.

    She's so cute!

    Cheers Emma and Eivind! With you two as allies, what could possibly go wrong?

  34. theantifeminist

    Post author

    If teenaged girls were tortured and mutilated in the same way in sadistic film depicts the UNCONSENTUAL torture of teenaged boys, I doubt seriously if anybody would be defending it as 'art'.

    In the 80's and 90's there was a universally respected photographer called David Hamilton who published books containing stunningly beautiful artistic nudes of adolescent girls. Now his books are treated as child porn and have been banned in the UK. Yet Salo is still apparently legal even in the UK. Artistic beautiful photographs of teenage girls lying happily on a beach are considered child porn, yet a film containing nothing but the sexual torture, rape, forced scat, and murder of naked 14 year old boys is art, even though the director was clearly a paedophile and was murdered by an abused child after the film was made, and even though one of the underage male actors of the movie later killed himself.

  35. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Yet another Manboobz groupie paedophile with an apparent fetish for images of idealized pre-pubescent girls - this was underneath Fraudtrelle's latest video :

  36. Eric

    Judging by the looks of some of Futrelle's groupies, Emma might actually be wishing punishment on him by hoping he ends up in bed with one!

  37. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Hahaha..that made me laugh Eric.

    Actually, given that Fraudtrelle and many of his paedophile fake transgender groupies appear to share a love of child torture porn, I sure hope the FBI have the sense to send along an undercover agent at the next 'Manboobz Meetup'.

  38. Alan Vaughn

    @theantifeminist

    Yet another Manboobz groupie paedophile with an apparent fetish for images of idealized pre-pubescent girls - this was underneath Fraudtrelle's latest video :

    I hope you will forgive me for being a bit of a mushroom here and possibly appearing to be a bit of an aspie, but who are the manga / anime loving paedocs actually referring to?
    I.e. the sick little pervert calling itself 'Mancheeze' said 'he told some story about how he saved a woman from being raped but then...
    Who is 'he'?

  39. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @Alan - They are referring to JohnTheOther. The video in question is Futrelle's work mocking JohnTheOther as a 'rapey rapist' for once claiming on YouTube that he was so numbed by feminist rape hysteria that he could no longer care about real rape victims. I don't want to link to it, as I don't like to link to yet another false accusation of rape and/or paedophilia from a psychopathic paedophile (monsterboobz), but it's at the top or near the top of his blog.

    JohntheOther once claimed to have saved a woman from rape, but apparently the location he gave didn't match any real place (according to monsterboobz and his groupies).

  40. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Fraudtrelle is simply going into overdrive trying to incite violence against the speakers at next weekend's Detroit conference.

  41. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Apparently Fraudtrelle was on Al Jazeera again last night - I hope the interviewer asked him why he called for the police to be arrested for removing a film being rented out in a gay sex shop that contained nothing but real, naked 14 and 15 year old boys 'eating shit, raped, mutilated, murdered'...

  42. Alan Vaughn

    Ok thanks for that - I knew it had to be someone from AVFm, but knew it wasn't its infamous (malE) leader...
    You say you won't link to its site, well I REFUSE to even visit it at all, which explains why I'm such a mushroom. The flob just sickens me now, so all I know now is whatever you report here...

    I hope the interviewer asked him why he called for the police to be arrested for removing a film being rented out in a gay sex shop that contained nothing but real, naked 14 and 15 year old boys 'eating shit, raped, mutilated, murdered'...

    Yes, that question should surely have been asked, but my gut feeling is it wouldn't have as much as entered the interviewer's mind, unfortunately...

  43. Eric

    "I sure hope the FBI have enough sense to send someone undercover during the next Manboobz Meetup"

    All they'd have to do, too, is put a dress and wig on any of their male agents, and they'd blend right in!

  44. Eric

    It may not have occurred to Fraudtrelle and his paedocrite groupies that John the Other might have intentionally given a fake place name because---oh, say---he wanted to protect the rape victim from the 'compassionate' publicity that Futrelle and his gang would give her?

    I saw the other day on one of your links that Futrelle was also claiming that Boxcutter attacks in Vancouver never really happened either. Fidelbogen only showed something like 5 different videos of it---lol. Just like Futrelle never defended the '120 Days of Sodom' either.

  45. Pingback:

  46. Alan Vaughn

    She's so cute!

    Cheers Emma and Eivind! With you two as allies, what could possibly go wrong?

    I must need some new glasses, didn't even notice that comment until now.
    If she was indeed referring to this, or any of your other similar posts (on the topic of the pederast Futrelle), you'd have to consider banning her, or even both of them?
    Eric left a brief, but very appropriate comment under it though, while some extremist anti-Islamist also called her a 'sexist pig'.
    On the same note - Eivind worries me too. I wonder how he will react if (WHEN) she dumps him? If you read his early musings, chronicled prior to him meeting his beloved Emma (and I know you have), you'll know what I mean...

  47. theantifeminist

    Post author

    If she was indeed referring to this, or any of your other similar posts (on the topic of the pederast Futrelle), you'd have to consider banning her, or even both of them?

    It might have been a coincidence, but it does seem odd that her article appears on the same day or the day after I attack Fraudtrelle (and other MRAs were doing so too, as a result of the fact that Fraudtrelle was inciting violence against the Detroit conference). I think she clearly is referring to Fraudtrelle, and possibly Kyle Payne, Hugo Schwyzer etc.

    On the same note - Eivind worries me too. I wonder how he will react if (WHEN) she dumps him?

    Yes, this is why I'd rather ignore Emma and really don't want to get into another fight with her. I don't know if she will ever dump him as she does seem to genuinely love him, but yes, you're very right, the consequences could be very serious, including for us given that we were loyal to him and stood by him and Emma (although obviously dissociating ourselves from his crazy statements regarding the police) when he was arrested and when it seemed likely we would be too.

    I would also ask Jack if he's reading this whether or not he has an opinion on David Futrelle? I must admit I do find it slightly odd, that Jack is so insistant that MEN are the REAL PROBLEM, to the extent that we can ignore feminists and just concentrate on fighting MEN, that here we have surely the worst example of a MAN betraying his own gender, and we have him on the rack, but suddenly Jack goes silent.

    I'm not having a go at you Jack, but I honestly do find it a little odd and a little dissapointing the lack of support here, As far as I know, you've never expressed an opinion on FUtrelle. Is it because he counts as an actual feminist, and perhaps even an actual woman, and we don't want to criticise women or feminists too harshly in case it hurts their feelings? We should just concentrate on fighting men who don't fight feminists? So basically the average man in the street? We need to fight them in order to show that we are fighting for them?

  48. Alan Vaughn

    Is it because he counts as an actual feminist, and perhaps even an actual woman, and we don't want to criticise women or feminists too harshly in case it hurts their feelings?

    That question reminded me of what I'd just read a couple of hours earlier, from a feMRA's excellent assault on Futrelle, his groupie hags and their collective misandry, that you linked to: Judgybitch. As you know: I don't normally have much time for feMRAs, however I must admit this Judgybitch lady, has to be one of perhaps two exceptions. (The 2nd being Karen Straughan aka: 'Girl Writes What').
    Here's the final paragraph and advice to Fattroll from her blog post:

    Not all feminists? Half a million page views. Is that enough for you to sit back and think it through? Feminism is a hate movement. Full stop. I look at the face of my little son and imagine one of these witches being his teacher, his doctor, his friend’s mother, a random woman on the street and I fear for him.

    The International Conference on Men’s Issues in Detroit is history in the making. It’s the first salvo in what is shaping up to be a long war. One that we are going to win.

    Hey David? You better pick sides, dude. And you might want to look in a mirror. You’re a man. Are you sure you’ll enjoy being put on a leash, put in a cage or put to sleep? One of your friends said that.

    And you said nothing.

    Lots of love,
    JB

    PS: for those who haven't read Judgybitch's post yet, it's here.

  49. Dennis

    First off, in defense of true liberalism in our society, I support the right of people to enjoy sick fantasies. A movie like this won't corrupt anyone. No one of normal mind will be inclined to watch this, much less enjoy it afterwards. Only those who are already messed up in the head will enjoy something like this. If you can enjoy a film like this, you have a sick mind to begin with. And frankly sickness is never the fault of the patient. And better you get your jollies from fiction than reality.

    HOWEVER, if our society won't let you drink a beer until you are 21, than they sure as hell shouldn't let you participate in something this vile (for public consumption no less) at age 15. This was an evil, opportunistic, sick exploitation of innocent youths. If Pasolini wants to write disturbing erotic fiction and post it online, fine. But don't lure niave youths into your sick fantasies. Many liberals have truly stomach turning ideas about the age of consent, and hopefully this article will help draw attention to just how leftism really is.

  50. I might be missing something here Dennis, but I hope you are implying that these "stomach turning" ideas involve a higher age of consent? Last time I checked, if there is ANY party that is trying to lower the age of consent (definitely not stomach turning) it is libertarians. I only say that because they push for lesser government and I have seen libertarians on forums arguing for a lower age of consent.

  51. PlainOldTruth

    I remember reading that Pasolini was murdered by a young man he ways sexually propositioning. I wonder what the details are now. Whatever the case Pasolini's "transgressive" glory -- his fulfillment of the much vaunted mode, polymorphous perversity, extolled as the cure-all for "patriarchy" and "western civilization by 80s visionaries Marcuse (a co-founder of "critical theory," political correctness) and N. O. Brown -- got him an ignominious death.

  52. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I remember reading that Pasolini was murdered by a young man he ways sexually propositioning. I wonder what the details are now.

    A 17 year old boy prostitute confessed to killing Pasolini, claiming that he had tried to anally rape him. Several years ago, over 2 decades after confessing, he strangely recanted - no doubt given incentives and under huge pressure from the Italian left and film industry, who see Pasolini as an artistic hero.

    What appears not to be in doubt is that Pasolini was a user of child prostitutes. i.e. there is NO doubt that David Futrelle is/was defending a film containing nothing but the graphic 'staged' sexual torture and murder of naked 14 year old boys, directed by a child abusing paedophile, and defending the right for gay men to rent it out in gay sex shops.

  53. revspinnaker

    "One of the main defences of the film as 'art' rather than category 5 child pornography, is that it was voted in the top 100 greatest films of all time by the Chicago Film Critics Association."

    Perhaps MRA's should plan to protest their next film fest. It's a very big deal in Chicago.

    And judging from his picture, Futrelle looks like he actually HAS man boobs.

  54. Dennis

    Jon, just go to the Young Turks youtube video "Should 18 year old girls be able to hook up with underage girls" and look at all the upvotes on comments that say the age of consent should be 14 like in Germany and Brazil.

    One "woman" I was arguing with even said that sex isn't a big deal and we shouldn't care about minors boning each other. When I brought up 6 in 10 children are currently born fatherless, she said "What does children being abandoned by their fathers have to do with sex?" Ignoring the fact that, in her utopian vision, many of those fathers she wants to step up would be 15 YEAR OLD BOYS.

  55. Opus

    I wrote about 120 Days at 4.19pm yesterday (but my message is presently in limbo). Worth repeating however that I watched 120 Days on Channel 4 (for Americans C4 is somewhere between NBC and PBS) at about the time they were showing a lot of 'porn' - under the guise of documentary. Loved that Japanese stuff; if you screw up your eyes the computer-dotting comes undone.

  56. jack

    I would like to know what Jack's opinion of David Futrelle is?

    I never paid much attention to that fool and I never wanted to form an opinion on him. I assumed there was a private feud between this site and Futrelle, judging by the coverage he's getting here, and I didn't put my oar in, not having anything to say. And I know a bit about him (and know what he looks like) only because he's been much talked about here. Isn't he just one of the hundreds male paedocrites out there? I only realised a short time ago that ManBooz means Futrelle.

  57. jack

    To clarify further, Futrelle's is a bit like the Emma story. I know there's some heated exchange going on between Theantifeminist and one Emma acquainted with Eivind Berge, but I never felt like joining in (apart from replying on this site to one Emma comment if I remember right). But the comment might have been written by someone else and I'd have given the same reply. Isn't there a danger of this site degrading into one anti-Futrelle diatribe? Might not Futrelle himself just welcome the negative publicity he's getting here? Just wondering.

  58. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I wrote about 120 Days at 4.19pm yesterday (but my message is presently in limbo).

    Yes, sorry Opus, but from time to time, I have the right to not approve comments that are unsupportive of myself in situations like this.

  59. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I never paid much attention to that fool and I never wanted to form an opinion on him. I assumed there was a private feud between this site and Futrelle

    He's publicly calling everybody here paedophiles, including your good self sir, as well as trying to have the entire men's rights movement criminalized as a hate movement.

    I'm sorry if my articles defending the MRM, myself, and my readers, including your good self, from his libels, are distracting a little from your intellectual dick sizing and promotion of the ground breaking anti-feminist men's rights theory that men are the REAL PROBLEM and that we can and should ignore feminists, and even be nice to them while we hate (and more) men.

  60. theantifeminist

    Post author

    To clarify further, Futrelle's is a bit like the Emma story.

    Err...odd comparison that for the reason I just mentioned. Emma, despite our differences, at least claims to be an anti-feminist. Futrelle is trying to have us all thrown in prison simply for expressing our views.

    Might not Futrelle himself just welcome the negative publicity he's getting here?

    Yea, sure he enjoys the world knowing that he thinks 'art' movies featuring naked children being tortured should be sold in gay sex shops. I should just let him get on with criminalizing the men's rights movement and calling us paedophile apologists for discussing the feminist age of consent and keep quiet about his numerous controversial statements on teenage sex and REAL child abuse. Guess you're right.

    Isn't there a danger of this site degrading into one anti-Futrelle diatribe?

    Well it's my site and I can't even run it if men's rights discussion itself becomes illegal. If I adopted your viewpoints this men's rights site would degrade into one long anti-male diatribe.

    Also, I realise you just see this site as a platfrom for your own views and theories, but at the end of the day, I do appreciate some support from my readers at times for the investment I make and the risks I take in giving you that platform.

  61. Eric

    Jack:
    I don't think Futrelle's enjoying the publicity he's gotten here at all. Like I mentioned earlier, his groupies and supporters rallied in his defense before it went viral in the MRM. They saw what a threat it really posed.

  62. He's publicly calling everybody here paedophiles, including your good self sir, as well as trying to have the entire men's rights movement criminalized as a hate movement.

    All I know is that I am proud to have my online identity associated with your site. Granted, I have never mentioned this site in my stream (we discuss everything we talk about here anyway), but I just wanted to let you know that I have your back theantifeminist and I can't say enough how much I appreciate many of your readers here.

  63. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I don't think Futrelle's enjoying the publicity he's gotten here at all. Like I mentioned earlier, his groupies and supporters rallied in his defense before it went viral in the MRM. They saw what a threat it really posed.

    I've been pointing out what a perverted hypocrite he is for 5 years now, ever since he lied and claimed that I wanted the age of consent abolished alltogether. All this time he's made a point of ignoring me, and has only felt forced to fight me now because AVoiceforMen and the rest of the MRM have finally woken up and taken a look at exactly what shocking things Futrelle has said in the past (as revealed at this site).

    His shoddy 'defence' relies on the fact that Pasolini the paedophile gets a free pass because he was/is a left-wing darling. The fact that this film is still available on Amazon, Netflix is an anachronism and I'm sure all it would take is a small effort to kick up a fuss to have it banned and re-classified as the extreme child porn that it is. As we all know, most of the so-called 'child protection charities' are simply corrupt STU lobby groups, but if we forced them to answer the question - 'do you think a film directed by a paedophile featuring naked 14 year olds being tortured and made to eat shit should be available on Amazon' etc, then they are going to have to say no. There is no conceivable way this film should be legal in the UK. Some of Futrelle's paedophile groupies are saying that we will want the film adapatations of Lolita banned next (how ironic!). Actually, even the novel by Nabakov is technically illegal child porn in the EU. (And Futrelle libels as a paedophile anybody who questions any feminist law on child porn or 'paedophilia'). However, there is no way either of the film adaptations of Lolita would be on sale today if they contained nude images of Lolita. I've read that the Brooke Shields film 'Babyface' (not sure if I've got the title right) in which she plays a 12 year old prostitute, is heavily edited in the UK, due to there being a famous nude scene of her in it. How on Earth a film containing naked under 18's 'pretending' to be sexually abused and tortured by adults is still legally on sale here I have no idea. Possibly because only a few people outside of the, ahem, connisseurs of the genre, such as Futrelle and his film critic groupies, are even aware of the film and its disgusting depiction of naked children.

    And all this discussion as to whether or not the film has artistic merit and whether it should be legal ignores the fact that Futrelle defended it's sale in a gay sex shop. I believe nudism videos featuring children are (somewhat bizarrely) still legal in the UK. However, somehow I don't think any sex shop trying to sell them would last more than 10 minutes without getting raided. Fraudtrelle is a man who believes that pictures of 17 year old girls in tight jeans are child porn if viewed on a 'jailbait' reddit. (and note that in the USA, even in a 'sexual context' pictures of clothed teens are legal.).

  64. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I just wanted to let you know that I have your back theantifeminist and I can't say enough how much I appreciate many of your readers here.

    I appreciate that Jon. I also appreciate my readers, many of whom are indeed loyal and esteemed, and have supported me here and got me through some difficult times.

    Jack often makes some excellent points too, as we all know.

    However, any readers who take the wet fish attitude that if somebody attacks us, we should just roll over and ignore them, then please kindly take your meekness to Human-Stupidity, where you can engage in 'ephebophile' aspie limp-wristedness as much as you like. I would also state that I hold such 'ephebophiles' directly responsible for the murders of the likes of Bijan Ebrahimi as much as the femi-hags and the tabloids.

  65. Eric

    Antifeminist:
    That is a curious paradox: I wonder if Fat-Troll and his wig-wearing groupies and the perverts at the film critics' glee-clubs would have a different opinion of 'Salo' if:

    Pasolini was a heterosexual Italian Fascist who made an 'artistic film in a historical context' about perverted left-wing Viet Cong guerrillas torturing female victims? Do you think that would have gotten a free pass?

  66. Opus

    @Eric

    It is a long time ago that I saw it, but is not what you describe not that much different from The Green Berets. 'You're what this war is all about' intones John Wayne as he (metaphorically?) places his arm around the shoulder of the orphaned seven-year-old Vietnamese boy.

    The Green Berets and Inchon seem to be the only two (right-wing) pro-American movies about American wars in the Far East.

  67. Eric

    Opus:
    Neither one were huge hits with the Left. If I remember right, John Wayne partially had to finance and co-produce his films.

    There were some other lesser-known films during the Korean War area: 'Men in War'; 'The Steel Helmet'; 'Fixed Bayonets'; 'Pork Chop Hill' and few others that I can remember. Clint Eastwood also made 'Heartbreak Ridge' back in the 1980s which was kind of a polemical war film about a near-retired Korean/Vietnam War vet who was doing his last tour of duty in Grenada. The social engineers were infuriated by it; showing how their policies were crippling the US military.

  68. theantifeminist

    Post author

    David Futrelle in an article entitlted 'Who's Afraid of Torture?'

    http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/reading-whos-afraid-of-torture/Content?oid=884622

    " The failure of Millett's book is as much psychological as political: her writing is ultimately undone by her unwillingness to look beneath the surface, to look beyond her most immediate and obvious reactions. "Why does one study torture? Read about it, think about it, analyze and "obsess' over it?" she writes. "Because of hating it, fearing it, having felt or imagined or somehow experienced it. Because of wanting to see it end." This is a simple, logical, even honorable explanation--and an unconvincing one.

    Millett sets up rigid boundaries between good and evil. But few of us are so pure: even the most fervent do-gooder may secretly nurture grandiose desires for power and control, and most of us have felt at least momentarily the thrill of violence--if only in the imagination. The media, from the nightly newscasts to the Saturday morning cartoons, are saturated with violence, and popular films offer a violent excitement as ritualized as that of a public execution.

    If we are ever to eradicate cruelty and torture in the real world, we need to understand why they have such a hold over our imagination. And we could start by looking inward, beyond our shock. At one point Millett comes close to making such an argument, but then she retreats. In her eagerness to denounce the darkness in others, she studiously avoids acknowledging even the possibility of darkness in herself.

    One can't blame her for denouncing torture--and given the bestial nature of what she's writing about, her indignant tone is hardly unforgivable. But denunciation is only a first step, and Millett is hardly the first to take it. Freud taught us that the only way to fully understand--and ultimately master--our darkest impulses is to bring them to the surface, to examine them coldly in the light of day. Millett has forgotten this lesson, and so deprives herself and her readers. She writes about horror, but is unwilling to look it in the face. "

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>