The BBC, which continues to the use the sickening phrase 'including women and children' when reporting on civilian casualties in warzones, has published an article suggesting that figures for civilian deaths in Gaza should be treated with caution - simply because they appear to show that more male civilians are being killed than women.

Its recent report said that as of 6 August, 1,843 Palestinians had been killed and 66 Israelis and one Thai national since Israel launched Operation Protective Edge on 8 July.

Of those Palestinians, the status of 279 could not be identified, at least 1,354 were civilians, including 415 children and 214 women, the UN body reported.

So there were 216 members of armed groups killed, and another 725 men who were civilians. Among civilians, more than three times as many men were killed as women, while three times as many civilian men were killed as fighters.

The UN report carries a caveat with its figures: "Data on fatalities and destruction of property is consolidated by the Protection and Shelter clusters based on preliminary information, and is subject to change based on further verifications."

There has been some research suggesting that men in general are more likely to die in conflict than women, although no typical ratio is given.

Nonetheless, if the Israeli attacks have been "indiscriminate", as the UN Human Rights Council says, it is hard to work out why they have killed so many more civilian men than women.

Maybe it's because Israeli bombs are blowing up prisons, mental health wards, homeless shelters, which house 90%+ men? Maybe it's because rescue services and medical care prioritize female casualties over men and boys, hence the very phrase that the BBC continues to use - 'including women and children'?



See also : "including women and children" gets 1,500 results in Google News.



After 5 years, the men's rights movement finally cottons on to the fact that David Futrelle is a massive (and disturbing) paedocrite, AND that the defining feature of feminists is their physical repulsiveness.

I think I can now retire this site early.

The #feministsareugly tag went viral it seems within hours, immediately enraging feminists into publishing 'hot' pictures of themselves as 'counterproof'...unfortunately, it's only proving how deluded feminists are, and how much make-up they need to slap on to look even half-decent, even for the minority of feminists in their twenties.



However, the reaction to the hashtag does prove that, as I've always argued here, pointing out the ugliness of feminists should be considered a major weapon to use against them. Not only is it justified because their ugliness explains why they are feminists, it is a valid tactic because it works in shaming them.


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

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

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

Take a look at the passage from his article yourself :


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

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


If there is one consistant theme in David Futrelle's writings of the 1990's it is child abuse apologia.  Several of these articles have been discussed in the men's rights sphere recently, but one very important piece, actually published by Salon, has still yet to be raised.  In the article, entitled 'Sex and the Single Girl', Futrelle appears to make the astonishing suggestion that statutory rape victims as young as 13 should be encouraged to marry the adults who raped them, who themselves would escape prison.

(TRIGGER WARNINGS) : http://www.salon.com/1996/09/09/news_536/

One wonders what Pat would have thought of the Orange County, Calif., social workers who have been helping teenage girls in their charge — some of them as young as 13 — to get married to the men who have impregnated them, rather than trying to get the men arrested on charges of statutory rape.

The story has become a roiling controversy. Imagine! A government agency serving as a matchmaker for sexual predators! “Helping pregnant 13-year-olds to marry the men who have physically and sexually abused them will result not only in continued abuse of the adolescent, but there is strong evidence that it will soon result in abuse to the child,” a professor of social work complained in an angry letter to the Los Angeles Times. “And when the marriage ends with additional children and more abuse, will Orange County Social Services create a dating service for abusive men to cycle them into new relationships with troubled adolescents?”

Questions like these prompted Orange County (one of the most Republican in the country) to retreat from its matchmaker role. But the details of the cases cause one to pause a moment. Thirteen-year-old Isabel Gomez told social workers she truly loved her 20-year-old boyfriend. Isabel’s mother — herself only 29 — is convinced her daughter’s troubled life has improved dramatically since he stepped into her life.
Since the marriage, she told the Los Angeles Times, “everything is much better.”
The situation, admittedly, is far from ideal. But would Isabel Gomez be better served if the father of her child was behind bars?

That’s a harder question to answer. Two-thirds of all teen
pregnancies involve adult men, and we can’t put them all in jail.

This was written by the same schizoid man who is threatening libel action over the suggestion that when he said Victorian feminists 'used co-ercive strategies to control the sexual behaviour of young girls', what he meant was that Victorian feminists 'used co-ercive strategies to control the sexual behaviour of young girls' - i.e. raised the age of consent from 12/13 to 16 in order to end child prostitution.

Perhaps David Futrelle needs to either shut up or simply apologize to his feminist readers for the things he wrote in the 1990's.  As well as to Warren Farrell.


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.


As I revealed here recently, David Futrelle once chided Victorian social purity feminists (Butlerites) for 'controlling the sexual behaviour of young girls by coercive means'.

Particularly in the context of the article it was made in, this statement only appears to make sense if Futrelle is implying that either or both of two things were justified - child prostitution and the previous age of consent of 12/13. The Butlerites are famous only for their campaigns against prostitution, and child prostitution in particular, and the raising of the age of consent from 12 to 13, and then to 16, as a means to combatting child prostitution.

David Futrelle is trying to defend himself by claiming that the Victorian feminists used the term 'girls' patronizingly to refer to adult women.

Unfortunately, David Futrelle used the term 'young girls'. There is also nothing to suggest that he used the term 'young girls' to satarize the attitudes of Butlerites to adult women. If that was his intention, he certainly didn't make it clear to the average reader, and at that time at least, David Futrelle was a fairly competent writer.

Futrelle also has a somewhat disturbing history of minimizing the reality of child sexual abuse in his writings of the 1990's - including defending the distribution of a film depecting the graphic sexual abuse, torture, and murder of naked children in a gay sex shop, that was directed by a paedophile whose murder was confessed to by a child prostitute he was abusing.

Futhermore, there appears to be no evidence that the Butlerites did use the term 'girls' let alone 'young girls' to describe adult women prostitutes. In fact, their victorious piece of legislation, the Criminal Amendment Act of 1885, was published with the alternative title - 'an act to make further provision for the protection of women and girls'.

Wikipedia gives an interesting background to the Act, which also criminalized homosexuality for exactly the same reason as it raised the age of consent and criminalized prostitution - male sexuality was considered evil. It also reveals how the act was passed - by hysteria and mob intimidation. A majority of parliamentarians were bitterly opposed to the bill, and it was only finally passed after the intimidatory tactic of publishing the names of the members who were voting against it. This was at a period when 'paedohysteria' was as rampant as it is now, with society going through a moral panic at the supposed 'white slave trade' involving teenage child prostitutes. Much of this has been exposed as lies.

It is a curious fact, therefore, that the age of consent is 16 in the UK, and by consequence, much of Europe, the USA, and the world, because of tabloid lies and intimidation of politicians, all at the instigation of Victorian feminists who were acting under the conviction that all things connected to male sexuality and desire were intrinsically evil, and as a consequence, criminalized homosexuality in the very same bill. These were the very same feminists who would later be handing out white feathers to traumatised underage boy veterens of the first world war.

*Another curious fact is that W.F.Stead, who along with the Butlerites led the moral panic over 'white slavery', died, in true mangina fashion, on the Titanic....along with Jacques Futrelle, the grandfather of Manboobz.


Two law abiding men have been convicted of possessing extreme pornography after they were sent it via someone they didn't know on WhatsApp, stopped viewing it when they realised what it was, and promptly deleted it from their application, not knowing that the images were still stored on their phone. Their 'possession' of the illegal porn only came to light when their mobile phones were examined as a result of a completely unrelated matter. Now they have a criminal record of a serious sexual offence.


'I didn't even watch the full content of the video. It was very sick and disturbing.'

Ticehurst, who was also unrepresented, said he had received a new phone in December and didn't know who had sent them to him.

He said: 'They (the files) were on my phone for two months, I completely forgot about them.

'I thought they were disgusting and decided not to look at them.'

The pair said they had no idea possessing the material was illegal.

Judge Worsley said there was no evidence of the defendants sharing the content, or the men getting sexual gratification from them.

He handed both defendants a two-year conditional discharge and told them to each pay £500 costs.

Motorists in the UK involved in accidents are now going to have their mobile phones routinely examined by the police : http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/uk-police-to-start-seizing-drivers-mobile-phones-after-all-crashes-9632873.html

The truly worrisome thing is, nobody has a clue what percentage of men have illegal images 'stored' (i.e. once viewed) on their pcs, tablets, phones etc. Given that most of these insane feminist laws do not apply in the USA and Russia, where the vast majority of porn sites are based, I would guess it could be as much as 90% of men. Certainly a sizeable percentage - and I'm referring here to men largely unintentionally viewing an 'illegal' image that they might not even have known was illegal, and then even as these men did, deleting it straight away.

Talk about 'selective justice'...

The authorities want to be in a position to be able to arrest and imprison any man in the country at any time, and they're getting close to it with the help of the femihags.

On the part of the femihags, their aim is to deter all men from viewing any kind of porn, something which sends their psychotic animal minds into a painful frenzy of sexual resentment and envy. They want to make it dangerous to the point of suicidal for a man to look for (legal) porn online, for fear of getting illegal images on to his device.

However, as the authorities are well aware, most men will continue to look at porn online, no matter what the risks.

Further down the road, as brain/thought imaging and the understanding of how memories are stored in the brain becomes more advanced, I can see the day when scientists will be able to read a person's entire mental history. Combine this with Yewtree witchhunting and in half-a-century, old men might be put on trial for once being sexually aroused by the sight of a 17 year old 'child' wearing microshorts in the street in the year 2014...