David Futrelle is continuing to defend the renting out in a gay sex shop of a sickening child torture porn movie that was directed by a paedophile and which involved real underage naked child actors, one of whom later killed himself.
His defence of his earlier comments on 'Salo, 120 days of Sodom' rests on the fact that it has been included in several critic's polls as a 'classic' film.
This is rather like defending a claim that drugging and then sodomizing 13 year old girls is acceptable on the grounds that a list of Hollywood celebrities defended Roman Polanski.
Furthermore, as I have previously noted, one of these oft quoted 'critic's polls' was made by the Chicago Film Critics Association. You and your chums don't happen to be members of that association by any chance David? Certainly seems to be something in the water in Chicago, at any rate, for a movie that depicts the graphic torture and murder of naked schoolboys to have been rated as 'classic' by residents of a city still in mourning for the victims of John Wayne Gacy.
Above all, Futrelle still avoids the fact that he was defending the film being rented out in a gay sex shop. Whether or not it does have any claim for artistic merit for the 'cognoscenti', it was clearly a pornographic child torture movie in the context of the gay adult book store - i.e. gay sex shop - that it was being rented out in, quite obviously for sexual purposes.
David Futrelle believes that pictures of fully clothed teens can be considered 'child porn' in a certain context (for example, a 'jailbait' forum). Yet he thinks a film depicting naked children being tortured can be rented out in a gay sex shop alongside other pornographic movies.
But what is really the most offensive about this, is the sheer hypocrisy involved. David Futrelle has continuously libelled Warren Farrell as being a paedophile, as well as incited violence against him, for disputed comments he made on incest nearly 50 years ago - comments which, even if they were made by Farrell, were not particularly unusual or heretic for the time, especially within sex positive feminist circles. In fact, as we know, Futrelle made some far more shocking statements regarding child sex, and abuse in general, much more recently, of which his defence of Salo is only one example.
David Futrelle goes beyond calling Warren Farrell an 'incest apologist' for comments he may or may not have made nearly half-a-century ago. He explicitly accuses him of being a paedophile on the basis of those comments. Underneath every article he has published on Farrell and his incest comments, he tags the article with 'paedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles'. He does this every time he quotes an anti-feminist who criticises feminist laws on the inflated concept of 'paedophilia'. Most recently (last week) he libelled Richard Dawkins as a paedophile for simply acknowledging that experiencing mild fumbling as a young teen is not the same as, for example, a 5 year old boy being raped by his father.
Futrelle appears to live in a fantasy world in which he can routinely libel others, yet screams and shouts when others point out that if x is a paedophile for discussing y, then it follows as a matter of logic that Futrelle is also a paedophile for discussing y.
Given the nature of the fantasies that Futrelle appears willing to defend, his detachment from reality could be considered somewhat disturbing... to say the least.
Please consider tweeting a link to this article to Richard Dawkins.